yhr\) 


Document  [K.] 


BY  THE  HOUSE  OF  DELEGATES, 

July  31,  1861 

Bead  and  1,000  copies  ordered  to  be  printed. 


REPORT 


AND 


ACCOMPANYING  DOCUMENTS 


OF  THE 


HOUSE  COMMITTEE, 

A 

APPOINTED  TO  EXAMINE  INTO  THE  AFFAIRS  OF  THE 


MARYLAND  PENITENTIARY. 


FREDERICK,  MD. 

E.  S.  RILEY,  PRINTER, 
1861. 


3&6~ 
/V\3  6/r 


<*o 

(ft 


5 

i 

i 


> 

t 


REPORT. 

The  special  Committee  appointed  under  the  resolution  of 
June  11th,  1861,  to  examine  generally  into  the  affairs  of 
the  Maryland  Penitentiary,  heg  leave  respectfully  to  re- 
port that  they  organized  in  the  city  of  Frederick  on  the 
25th  of  June,  and  selected  Mr.  Thomas  H.  Moore  as  clerk, 
and  adjourned  to  meet  on  the  1st  of  July,  in  the  city  of 
Baltimore,  at  the  Maryland  Penitentiary. 

Their  duties,  as  pointed  out  in  the  resolution  and  order 
above  referred  to,  consisted  of  an  investigation  of  the  fol- 
lowing matters  : 

1st.  The  memorial  of  John  H.  Duvall  and  William 
Howard,  asking  relief  from  losses  growing  out  of  the  de- 
struction of  their  property  by  fire. 

2d.  The  memorial  of  Charles  Murdock,  asking  relief  by 
a modification  of  his  contracts  with  the  Directors  of  the 
Penitentiary  and  the  equitable  settlement  of  claims  in  dis- 
pute between  them. 

3d.  An  investigation  of  the  manufacturing  department 
of  the  Institution  generally. 

4th.  An  examination  of  the  financial  affairs  and  condi- 
tion, and 

5th.  An  enquiry  into  its  general  management  and  dis- 
cipline. 

Taking  the  points  to  be  examined  in  the  order  they  ap- 
pear, the  Committee  commenced  with  the  memorial  of 
Messrs.  Duvall  and  Howard. 

The  memorial  states  that  on  the  3d  of  October,  1859, 
they  entered  into  a written  contract  with  the  Directors  of 
the  Maryland  Penitentiary  for  the  rent  of  certain  shops 
and  yard  room,  and  the  employment  of  convict  labor  in 
the  manufacture  of  barrels,  and  in  the  prosecution  of  that 
business  had  invested  a large  amount  of  money  in  the 
purchase  of  patent  rights-,  machinery,  and  the  necessary 
stock  to  carry  it  on  successfully  ; that  while  in  the  prose- 
cution of  a successful  business,  on  the  23d  of  December, 
1860,  their  work  shops  were  fired  by  some  of  the  convicts, 
and  their  property  almost  destroyed,  entailing,  as  they 
allege,  a loss  over  and  above  the  amount  of  insurance  of 
$23,150,  and  avers  that  said  fire  was  caused  partly  by  the 
refusal  of  the  Directors  to  permit  them  to  have  their  own 
watchman  on  the  premises  on  Sunday,  (the  fire  having  oc- 


4 


curred  on  that  day,)  whereby  their  property  was  left  in  an 
unprotected  state  on  Sundays,  and  partly  by  a want  of  pro- 
per discipline  on  the  part  of  the  officers  of  the  Institution, 
by  which  the  convicts  were  enabled  to  obtain  access  to  the 
shops  and  commit  the  incendiary  act ; and  the  memorial- 
ists plead  that  as  the  loss  was  by  no  act  of  their  own,  but 
was  indirectly  caused  by  the  officers  of  the  State,  as  above 
stated,  that  the  Legislature  should  grant  them  relief  by 
reimbursing  in  whole,  or  in  part,  the  loss  sustained. 

The  magnitude  of  the  claim,  and  the  importance  of  it  to 
the  memorialists,  who  were  entirely  ruined  by  the  fire,  as 
well  as  to  the  State,  whose  finances  are  not  in  a condition 
to  bear  any  burdens  that  are  justly  avoidable,  demanded 
of  the  Committee  the  most  careful  and  thorough  examina- 
tion of  the  case,  it  was  conducted  and  argued  by  eminent 
counsel  on  both  sides.  Numerous  witnesses  were  exam- 
ined, whose  evidence  will  be  found  in  the  proceedings  of 
the  Committee,  pages  1 to  53,  herewith  submitted ; and 
while  deeply  sympathising  with  the  memorialists  in  the 
heavy  loss  they  have  sustained,  the  Committee  have  been 
unable  to  arrive  at  the  conclusion  that  the  case  presents 
any  just  grounds  for  a claim  on  the  State,  the  allegation 
that  the  Directors  refused  to  permit  the  presence  of  a pri- 
vate watchman  on  Sundays,  was  not  sustained  by  the 
evidence,  and  although  it  was  proved  that  the  shops  were 
fired  on  Sunday  by  some  of  the  convicts,  yet  it  did  not 
appear  to  have  arisen  from  any  lack  of  ordinary  discipline 
on  the  part  of  the  officers,  it  being  utterly  impossible  with 
few  officers  and  many  prisoners,  strictly  to  carry  out  the 
prison  rules  which  requires  a prispner  to  be  always  under 
the  eye  of  an  officer,  neither  have  the  Committee  been  able 
to  arrive  at  the  conclusion  that  a loss  by  fire,  even  if 
proved  to  have  been  caused  by  negligence  on  the  part  of 
the  officers,  would  afford  just  cause  for  a claim  on  the  State. 

The  second  portion  of  the  investigation  was  the  memo- 
rial of  Charles  Murdock,  asking  a modification  of  his  con- 
tracts with  the  Directors  and  the  arbitration  of  a disputed 
account  between  them. 

. It  appears  that  Mr.  Murdock  for  some  ten  years  past  has 
rented  work  shops  and  employed  the  convict  labor  of  the 
Institution,  principally  in  the  manufacture  of  cedar  ware, 
and  at  the  time  of  his  memorial,  had  in  his  employment 
one  hundred  convicts  whose  time  would  expire  July  1, 
1861,  and  fifty,  whose  time,  under  his  contract,  would 
expire  January  1,  1865.  Mr.  Murdock  deemed  himself 
justified  in  asking  relief  from  his  contracts  on  the  ground 
that  the  existing  war  and  blockade  of  the  Southern  States 
had  seriously  embarrassed  him  in  the  prosecution  of  his 


5 


business,  the  raw  material  that  he  uses  being  derived  en- 
tirely from  the  South,  and  his  manufactured  goods  finding 
an  exclusive  market  there,  thus  completely  shutting  him 
out  on  both  sides,  and  rendering  it  impossible  to  carry  on 
his  busines  until  peace  should  be  restored. 

Before  the  Committee  proceeded  to  take  evidence  in  this 
case,  an  arrangement  and  settlement  was  happily  made 
between  the  Directors  and  Mr.  Murdock,  by  which  the 
latter  pays  in  full  to  the  Directors  the  amount  in  dispute, 
and  retains  the  labor  of  50  men  at  50  cents  per  day  until 
January  1,  1865.  This,  with  the  rent  of  the  shops,  will 
give  the  Institution  a revenue  from  that  source  of  about 
$8,300. 

The  100  men  whose  time  with  Mr.  Murdock  expired  on 
the  1st  of  July,  the  Directors  propose  to  employ  in  the 
weaving  department. 

The  Manufacturing  Department. 

This  department  is  devoted  to  the  manufacture  of  plaid 
cottons,  with  a few  linseys  and  coarse  carpets,  and  the 
Committee  regret  to  report  it  in  a very  depressed  condi- 
tion. At  no  time  has  it  been  a source  of  much  revenue  to 
the  Instition,  arising  from  the  inability  of  hand  loom  labor 
to  compete  successfully  with  power  looms ; still,  the  supe- 
rior quality  of  its  manufactured  goods  and  its  wide-spread 
reputation  has  heretofore  insured  their  immediate  sale, 
but  the  embarrassment  growing  out  of  the  blockade  of  the7 
Southern  States  has  produced  the  same  results  as  in  the 
case  of  Mr.  Murdock;  nearly  all  the  yarns  used  are  the 
product  of  Southern  mills,  while  the  manufactured  goods 
find  a market  exclusively  in  the  Slave  States.  The  con- 
sequence is,  that  no  sales  have  been  made  by  the  Directors 
for  the  past  three  months,  and  none  of  any  consequence 
can  be  made  until  the  Southern  markets  shall  be  re-opened. 
No  revenue,  therefore,  can  be  expected  from  this  depart- 
ment as  long  as  the  present  unfortunate  state  of  affairs 
continues  to  exist.  The  stock  of  manufactured  goods  now 
on  hand  amounts  to  $10,500,  and  of  materials  to  $2,300, 
which,  when  manufactured,  will  increase  the  stock  of  goods 
to  $15,000,  all  of  which,  in  ordinary  times,  could  be  made 
available  to  pay  the  debts  and  expenses  of  the  Institution. 

The  Committee,  after  a patient  and  thorough  investiga- 
tion of  this  brafich  of  the  subject,  are  satisfied  that  the 
entire  system  of  labor  at  the  Institution  is  wrong,  and 
demands  a radical  change,  as  at  present  conducted,  it 
must  always  be,  as  it  has  been,  a heavy  burden  on  the 
State.  It  has  not  been  furnished  by  the  State  with  the 
cash  capital  necessary  to  carry  on  successfully  a manufac- 


6 


turing  business ; its  operations  are,  necessarily,  on  a 
credit  basis,  and  the  disadvantages  of  this  system  may  be, 
illustrated  by  the  single  fact  that  it  has  paid  during  the 
last  five  years  the  sum  of  $13,015  for  interest  alone,  to  say 
nothing  of  the  increased  cost  of  supplies  when  purchased 
on  credit,  and  the  saving  of  the  discount  which  always 
accompany  cash  payments. 

A careful  analysis  of  the  operations  of  this  department 
for  the  past  five  years  exhibits  the  fact  that  the  nett  earn- 
ings of  all  the  convicts  employed  by  the  Institution  average 
but  eleven  cents  per  day,  and  this,  without  making  any 
allowance  for  cost  and  depreciation  of  machinery,  while 
about  the  same  number  of  convicts  employed  by  the  con- 
tractors at  50  cents  per  day,  gave  a revenue  of  $28,800  for 
labor,  and  $700  for  rent  of  work  shops.  It  is  true  that 
the  labor  employed  by  the  latter  was  of  better  quality, 
but  that  would  account  for  but  a small  portion  of  the  dif- 
ference. 

The  Committee  would  recommend  the  total  abolition  of 
all  manufacturing  on  account  of  the  Institution,  and  the 
substitution  of  a system  farming  the  convict  labor  to  con- 
tractors. Under  this  system,  the  Institution  can  be  made 
to  support  itself  and  the  State  relieved  from  a heavy  bur- 
den, while  the  prisoners  will  be  taught  some  useful  trade, 
the  knowledge  of  which,  by  giving  them  the  means  of 
procuring  an  honest  livelihood,  would  in  many  instances 
prevent  them  from  relapsing  into  crime. 

It  is  very  true  that  the  difficulties  of  the  present  time 
will  prevent  this  plan  from  being  carried  out  at  once,  but 
with  peace  will  come  the  ordinary  demand  for  labor,  when 
it  can  be  successfully  accomplished. 

It  will  not  be  out  of  place  here  to  illustrate  the  propo- 
sition by  an  estimate  of  its  results. 

The  expenses  of  all  kinds  <of  maintaining  the  Institu- 
tion, simply  as  a prison,  may  he  estimated  at  about  $37,000. 
This,  by  a judicious  economy,  might  be  probably  reduced 
to  $35,000.  The  prisoners  average  about  420  in  number, 
of  which  400  are  males.  Suppose  the  sick,  the  infirm, 
and  those  necessary  to  perform  the  ordinary  house  work 
of  the  Institution  to  amount  to  100,  there  remains  300 
whose  labor  may  be  made  available.  These  would  not  be 


equally  valuable,  and  may  be  thus  classified  : 

200  worth  50  cents  per  day,  - $31,300 

50  “ 25  “ “ “ - - - 3,912 

50  “ 12 J 1,956 

Producing  ------  $37,168 


7 


A sum  fully  equal  to  all  tlie  expenses  of  tlie  Institution. 
This  change  would  not  entail  any  expense  on  the  State, 
inasmuch  as  the  work  shops  now  used  for  spinning  and 
weaving  would  be  sufficient  and  answer  for  any  other  oc- 
cupation. 

The  Financial  Condition  of  the  Institution. 

In  the  investigation  of  this  branch  of  the  inquiry  every 
facility  was  afforded  by  the  Board  of  Directors,  and  Mr.  J. 
J.  C.  Dougherty,  the  financial  clerk  and  book-keeper. 

The  Institution  has  been  singularly  fortunate  in  secur- 
ing the  services  of  the  latter  officer,  whose  books  and  ac- 
counts are  kej)t  in  a manner  highly  creditable  to  himself 
and  those  who  appointed  him. 

This  examination  produced  the  following  results  : 
Liabilities  of  the  Institution,  over  ) 

and  above  cash  on  hand  July  1st,  1861,  \ $45,298  41. 

ASSETS. 

Appropriation  at  April  session 

not  yet  collected,  $25,000 

Active  debt  due  (good)  by  con- 
tractors, 6,764.65 

Suspended  debt,  5,414.47 

Manufactured  goods  and  mate- 
rials on  hand,  12.669.29  49,848.41. 

Nominal  surplus,  $4,550.00 

The  stock  of  manufactured  goods  on  hand  is  not  availa- 
ble for  reasons  before  stated,  and  the  suspended  debt  is  in 
the  same  condition,  from  the  same  causes  ; it  consists  of 
the  notes  of  merchants,  hitherto  of  undoubted  solvency, 
doing  business  in  the  South,  whose  business  is  now  pros- 
trate, and  whose  only  chance  of  paying  their  debts  is  in 
the  probability  of  being  able  at  some  future  day  to  collect 
the  debts  due  them  in  the  Southern  States. 

From  this  exhibit  it  will  be  seen  that  until  peace  is  re- 
stored, and  trade  resumes  its  accustomed  channels,  the 
Institution  must  become  a heavy  burden  on  the  State,  and 
that  to  carry  it  through  the  next  twelve  months  an  addi- 
tional appropriation  of  not  less  than  $25,000  will  be  abso- 
lutely necessary. 

The  General  Management  and  Discipline. 

On  this  subject  it  affords  the  Committee  much  pleasure 
to.  speak  of  the  faithful  and  efficient  manner  in  which  the 
Directors  and  officers  have  discharged  their  duties,  under 
the  immediate  management  of  Mr.  Alfred  D.  Evans,  the 
Warden,  and  his  deputy,  Mr.  Isaac  Gr.  Roberts.  The  en- 
tire prison  presents  an  air  of  neatness  and  cleanliness  rare- 


8 


1 y met  with  in  public  buildings  of  the  kind,  and  would 
indeed  be  creditable  to  any  private  house  ; the  prisoners 
were  well  clad  and  cleanly  in  their  persons,  and  the  food 
sufficient  in  quantity  and  quality.  The  discipline,  if  not 
at  all  times  carried  out  to  the  strict  letter  of  the  law,  is 
as  perfect  as  the  limited  number  of  officers  and  guards 
would  admit  of. 

But  there  are  some  matters  in  this  connection  which  hu- 
manity demands  at  the  hands  of  the  Legislature  as  early 
action  as  the  finances  of  the  State  will  justify.  The  law 
requires  that  each  prisoner  shall  be  confined  in  a separate 
cell ; this  from  the  want  of  necessary  accommodations  can- 
not be  carried  out  ; five,  six,  and  sometimes  as  many  as 
eight  are  confined  in  one  room,  subject  to  all  the  evils  that 
arise  from  free  intercourse  between  criminals  ; in  addition 
to  this  the  basement  cells  of  the  eastern  dormitory  (some 
fifty  in  number)  are  under  ground  and  unfit  for  the  con- 
finement of  human  beings — it  is  true  the  present  Warden, 
by  flooring  the  brick  pavement,  has  improved  their  condi- 
tion somewhat,  still  they  are  not  fit  to  be  used. 

A new  dormitory,  with  not  less  than  150  cells,  should 
be  erected  as  soon  as  the  means  of  the  State  will  permit. 

There  is  another  evil  that  requires  Legislative  action — 
it  is  too  much  the  practice  of  the  courts  throughout  the 
State  to  send  persons  to  the  Penitentiary  for  small  offenses 
whose  proper  destination  would  be  the  County  Almshouse 
or  the  Insane  Hospital.  There  are  now  in  the  Institution 
many  of  both  classes,  some  who  commit  a petty  theft  for 
the  sole  purpose  of  being  provided  with  a home,  and 
others  idiotic  or  insane  at  the  time  of  commitment. 

One  case  may  be  instanced  by  way  of  illustration  ; the 
commitment  is  from  Calvert  County  and  reads  thus  : — 

“George  Norfolk,  presented  for  feloniously  entering  the 
dwelling  of  Wm.  Ogden  and  taking  therefrom  a bottle  of 
whiskey,  a pan  of  milk,  and  some  bread  and  meat.  Ver- 
dict of  the  jury,  Guilty , and  insane  at  the  time  of  the  com- 
mittal .of  the  act  and  insane  now , and  sentenced  by  the 
Court  to  be  confined  in  the  Penitentiary  house  of  the  State 
of  Maryland  until  he  shall  recover  his  reason , and  be  dis- 
charged by  due  course  of  law  IP 

This  is  virtually  an  imprisonment  for  life  for  the  offense 
of  stealing  something  to  eat,  the  party  being  idiotic  and 
insane  at  the  time,  and  the  effect  is  to  transfer  his  support 
from  the  county  to  which  he  belongs  to  the  State  at  large. 

All  of  which  is  respectfully  submitted. 

LAWRENCE  SANGSTON,  ) 

CHARLES  H.  PITTS,  } Committee. 

JOHN  THOS.  FORD,  ) 


9 


Frederick  City,  June  25,  1861. 

The  Committee  appointed  by  the  House  of  Delegates  of 
Maryland  to  examine  into  the  questions  in  dispute  between 
Messrs.  Duvall  and  Howard,  and  Mr.  Charles  Murdock  and 
the  Board  of  Directors  of  the  Maryland  Penitentiary,  as 
also  to  inquire  into  the  financial  condition  of  the  same, 
assembled  this  day  in  Frederick,  at  12  o’clock,  M. 

Present — Messrs.  Sangston,  Pitts  and  Ford,  of  the  Com- 
mittee. 

Mr.  Thos.  H.  Moore  was  unanimously  selected  as  clerk 
to  the  Committee. 

After  consultation,  the  Committee  adjourned  to  meet  in 
Baltimore  city,  on  Monday,  July  1st,  1861,  at  the  office  of 
Charles  H.  Pitts,  Esq.,  at  11  o’clock,  A.  M. 

By  order,  \ 

THOMAS  H.  MOORE. 


Baltimore,  July  1st,  1861. 

The  Committe  appointed  to  examine  the  questions  in 
dispute  between  Messrs.  Duvall  and  Howard,  and  Charles 
Murdock  and  the  Board  of  Directors  of  the  Maryland 
Penitentiary,  as  well  as  to  inquire  into  the  financial  condi- 
tion of  said  Institution,  assembled  this  morning  at  the 
office  of  Charles  H.  Pitts,  Esq.,  St.  Paul  street,  pursuant 
to  adjournment. 

Present — Messrs.  Sangston,  Pitts  and  Ford,  of  the  Com- 
mittee. Thomas  H.  Moore,  Clerk. 

The  Clerk  was  directed  to  notify  the  Board  of  Directors 
that  the  Committee  would  visit  the  Penitentiary  on  to- 
morrow, July  2d,  for  the  purpose  of  examining  into  the 
facts  connected  with  the  contract  of  Messrs.  Duvall  and 
Howard. 

The  Committee  then  adjourned. 

By  order, 

THOS.  H.  MOORE,  Clerk. 

The  Committee  of  the  Legislature  of  Maryland  assem- 
bled this  morning  at  the  room  of  the  Directors  of  the 
Maryland  Penitentiary,  at  10  o’clock,  pursuant  to  adjourn- 
ment. 

Present — Messrs.  Sangston  and  Ford^  of  the  Committee. 
Mr.  John  H.  Duvall,  George  M.  Gill,  Esq.,  his  counsel, 

and  Messrs.  John  Hurst,  John  Hilbert,  Wm.  Chestnut, 

R.  Middleton  and  Lefevre  Jarrett,  of  the  Board  of  Di- 
rectors. 

The  Clerk  proceeded  to  read  the  memorial  of  John  H. 
Duvall  and  William  Howard  to  the  Legislature  of  Mary- 
land. 


10 


Isaac  G.  Roberts,  Deputy  Warden,  was  sworn  on  the 
Holy  Evangely  of  Almighty  God. 

Examined  by  Mr.  Sangston. — Question.  Were  you  the 
bearer  of  an  order  from  the  monthly  Committee  of  the 
Board  of  Directors  to  Mr.  Duvall,  directing  him  to  dis- 
pense with  the  services  of  a watchman  on  Sunday  ? 

Answer.  No  ; not  that  I recollect.  The  order  was  given 
me  by  the  Warden  to  tell  Messrs.  Duvall  and  Murdock 
that  there  should  be  no  more  Sunday  work,  and  to  stop  all 
work  of  that  kind. 

Question.  Did  that  order  extend  to  the  services  of  Mr. 
Duvall’s  watchman? 

Answer.  They  did  not  tell  me  that ; they  only  said  no 
more  fires  should  be  made  on  Sunday. 

Question.  Who  was  the  watchman  ? 

Answer.  I believe  his  name  was  Gam  brill. 

By  Mr.  Gill. — Question.  You  gave  the  same  directions 
to  Mr.  Murdock? 

Answer.  I do  not  recollect  whether  I gave  him  or  Mr. 
Kimball  the  directions.  I know  that  Mr.  Duvall’s  man 
was  at  work  on  Sundays. 

By  Mr.  Duvall.— Question.  Did  you  not  deliver  the  order 
to  me  in  this  way,  “ Your  men  must  not  be  about  here  on 
Sundays  ?” 

Answer.  No,  sir;  the  order  was,  that  Sunday  work 
should  be  stopped  throughout.  The  order  I received  from 
the  Warden  was  general. 

By  Mr.  Gill. — Question.  Did  you  tell  Mr.  Murdock,  or 
his  man  either,  that  they  should  not  have  a watchman  on 
Sunday? 

Answer.  The  prisoners  attended  to  Mr.  Murdock’s 
work  ; he  did  not'  have  a watchman  on  Sunday  in  day- 
time. 

Question.  Do  you  recollect  any  conversation  had  with 
Mr.  Murdock,  or  did  you  tell  Mr.  Murdock  that  you  had 
told  Mr.  Duvall  the  watchman  should  not  be  there  on  Sun- 
day ? 

Answer . I do  not  recollect  such  conversation.  The  di- 
rections given  to  Mr.  Duvall  was  sometime  before  the  23d 
December,  1860.  The  man  employed  by  Mr.  Duvall  was 
attending  to  the  dry-houses,  who  was  also  night  watch- 
man. The  fire  took  place  after  dinner  on  Sunday,  be- 
tween 2 and  3 o’clock ; before  3 o’clock,  23d  December, 
1860. 

Question.  Did  you  investigate  into  the  causes  of  the 
fire  ? 

Answer.  I did,  and  was  under  the  impression  that  Sam- 
uel Green,  Edward  Perry,  John  Butler  and  Joe  Wheat- 


11 


ley,  all  colored,  committed  the  act.  The  men  could  very 
easily  get  from  the  church  to  the  shop — about  sixty  yards. 

Question.  Were  they  permitted  to  go  about  without  an 
officer  under  the  proper  discipline  of  the  establishment  ? 

Answer.  It  is  customary  to  go  about  without  an  officer. 
The  officers  on  the  wall  are  constantly  on  the  look  out, 
with  arms  in  their  hands.  If  they  had  attended  to  their 
duty,  the  prisoners  could  not  enter  the  shop  of  Mr.  Duvall 
except  at  one  point  in  the  rear  ; Mr.  Murdock’s  dry-house 
obscured  the  view  from  the  officer’s  box,  leaving  a space 
of  three  or  four  feet  a prisoner  could  enter.  The  dormito- 
ries are  cleaned  between  10  and  12  o’clock.  The  fire  took 
place  about  fifteen  minutes  of  3 o’clock.  I ascertained 
from  investigation,  that  three  of  the  jmrties  were  guilty, 
and  one  was  present.  Wheatley  said  that  Green  had  a 
box  with  yellow  cotton  in  it ; Green  set  the  cotton  on  fire 
in  the  dormitory.  Green  and  Perry  went  to  Duvall’s 
shop  together,  when  they  built  the  fire.  Wheatley  said 
the  whole  four  were  connected  ; that  he,  Wheatley,  set 
the  fire,  but  the  others  assisted.  Yellow  cotton  is  an  arti- 
cle used  in  the  manufacturing  department,  and  makes  a 
very  good  slow-match.  A piece  three  feet  long  would 
burn  two  hours. 

Question.  How  far  is  the  dormitory  where  the  cotton  was 
set  on  fire  from  Duvall’s  shop? 

Answer.  About  seventy-five  yards. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Hurst. — Question.  Did  the  Court 
rule  your  testimony  out  ? 

Answer.  It  did  upon  the  second  trial,  because  the  infor- 
mation I derived  was  through  stratagem. 

By  Mr.  Jarrett. — Question.  How  long  have  you  been 
connected  with  the  Penitentiary  ? 

Answer.  Three  years  under  William  Johnson  Waden, 
one  year  under  I.  M.  Denson,  and  upwards  of  three  years 
under  A.  D.  Evans. 

Question .- — Are  the  present  officers  as  great  in  number 
as  those  of  former  administrations? 

Answer.  There  are  four  more  than  under  the  late  War- 
den, Mr.  Merry  man. 

Question *.  How  does  the  discipline  of  this  Institution  as 
at  present,  compare  with  that  of  former  wardens  ? 

Answer.  I think  it  might  be  more  strict ; my  own  or- 
ders are  to  carry  out  the  strictest  discipline,  and  I have 
endeavored  to  do  so. 

Question.  Has  not  Mr.  Duvall  been  notified  that  the 
condition  of  his  shops  prevented  the  officers  from  having  a 
strict  supervision  over  the  same  ? 


12 


Answer.  I have  notified  him  several  times  that  the 
quantity  of  barrels  prevented  the  officers  from  having  a 
full  view  of  the  entire  shop  during  work  hours. 

By  Mr.  Sangston. — Question.  Who  was  the  watchman 
on  duty  nearest  the  shop  of  Mr.  Duvall? 

Answer.  Mr.  Suter  was  fhe  guard. 

Question.  Was  any  action  taken  by  the  Board  in  rela- 
tion to  the  negligence  of  the  guard? 

Answer.  Yes.  Mr.  Suter  was  discharged. 

James  Gambrell , sivorn. 

By  Mr.  Gill. — Question.  You  recollect  the  fire  at  Mr. 
Duvall’s  shop,  23d  December,  1860? 

Answer.  Yes.  I do. 

Question.  How  long  prior  to  that  fire  had  you  been  em- 
ployed by  Mr.  Duvall? 

Answer.  Seven  months  and  nineteen  nights  and  days. 
I commenced  about  the  4th  May,  1860. 

Question.  What  was  your  duty  ? 

Answer.  Watch  out  for  fires  ; put  out  all  fires  used  in 
shop  after  prisoners  had  left ; not  to  permit  any  fires  after 
Saturday  night,  12  o’clock. 

Question.  When  you  first  attended,  what  did  you  do  on 
Sundays  ? 

Answer.  The  first  two  Sundays  I was  not  admitted  to 
the  yard  of  the  Institution  until  my  hour  for  duty  arrived. 

Question.  What  did  you  do  for  the  subsequent  time  on 
Sundays  ? 

Answer.  On  and  after  the  third  Sunday,  I cleaned  out 
the  boilers  of  the  engine,  and  watched  for  anything  that 
might  be  wrong  until  Mr.  Duvall’s  foreman  or  sons  ar- 
rived, which  continued  until  three  or  five  Sundays  before 
the  fire,  when  I stopped  coming  to  the  Institution  until 
my  hour  arrived  for  night  duty,  about  sun-down.  I 
stopped  then  by  Mr.  Duvall’s  directions.  I understood 
from  him  that  the  Directors  were  not  satisfied  with  his 
men  coming  upon  the  premises  on  Sunday  ; after  which 
notice  I did  not  watch  on  Sundays. 

Question.  Was  any  work  done  on  Sundays  after  you  en- 
tered Mr.  Duvall’s  employment? 

Answer.  Nothing  was  done  except  cleaning  the  boilers, 
which  was  done  by  me  until  stopped,  as  before  mentioned, 
by  Mr.  Duvall. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Jarrett. — Question.  When  Mr. 
Duvall  told  you  that  your  services  on  Sunday  were  dis- 
pensed with,  no  work  was  then  required  of  you? 

Answer.  I had  the  same  watching  to  do. 


13 


By  Mr.  Ford. — Question.  Did  you  understand  from  any 
person  connected  with  the  Institution  that  objection  was 
raised  against  your  being  there  as  watchman  simply  ? 

Answer.  I had  no  information  on  the  subject. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Jarrett. — Question.  Did  the  offi- 
cer in  charge  of  Mr.  Duvall's  shop  complain  in  your 
hearing  of  the  condition  of  the  shop  ? 

Answer.  I did  hear  him  complain,  and  have  seen  him 
take  Mr.  Duvall's  men  and  remove  the  cause  of  complaint. 

Question.  Have  you  seen  Mr.  Evans,  the  Warden,  pass 
through  at  late  hours  of  the  night  and  examine  Mr.  Du- 
vall's shop  ? 

Answer.  I have. 

Question.  Did  the  Warden  sometimes  previous  to  the  fire 
• express  to  you  his  apprehensions  that  because  of  the  non- 
employment of  the  convicts,  and  the  unsafe  condition  of 
Mr.  Duvall's  shop,  a fire  would  result  therefrom  ? 

Answer.  I do  not  think  the  convicts  were  referred  to, 
but  he  did  complain  of  the  condition  of  the  shop,  and  re- 
quested me  to  keep  a bright  look  out. 

Direct  examination  resumed  by  Mr.  Gill. — Question.  If 
you  had  continued  up  to  the  time  of  the  fire,  would  you 
not  have  been  able  to  prevent  the  fire  ? 

Answer.  I think  I would. 

Question.  Could  the  regular  watch  of  the  Institution 
prevent  the  convicts  from  going  into  Mr.  Duvall's  shop? 

Answer.  I think  they  could. 

Mr.  Charles  Murdock , sworn  for  Complainant . 

Examined  by  Mr.  Gill. — Question.  Prior  to  the  fire,  was 
a watchman  on  duty  on  Sunday  in  Mr.  Duvall's  shop  ? 

Answer.  I have  seen  one  on  duty,  presuming  he  was 
from  what  I have  seen  him  do,  the  impression  on  my  mind 
being  that  both  Mr.  Lamb  and  Mr.  Gambrell  have  attend- 
ed to  the  fires  on  Sunday,  although  I am  not  sure  of  the 
same. 

Question.  Had  you  any  conversation  with  Mr.  Roberts 
prior  to  or  subsequent  to  the  fire  in  relation  to  the  direc- 
tion he  had  given  Mr.  Duvall  as  to  the  watchman  being 
there  on  Sunday  ? 

Answer.  Aft^r  the  fire  Mr.  Roberts  admitted  to  me  that 
he  had  given  the  order  to  Mr.  Duvall  forbidding  his  watch- 
man on  Sundays.  The  order  to  stop  the  watchmen  was 
given  one  or'  two  months  prior  to  the  fire. 

By  A.  D.  Evans.  I understood  Mr.  Roberts  to  say  that 
the  watchman  was  stopped  from  doing  whatever  he  had 
been  previously  doing  ? 

By  Mr.  Jarrett. — Question. — Have  you  heard  any  objec- 


14 


tions  from  any  Director  to  a watchman  being  employed  by 
a contractor  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ; because  I have  had  to  employ  no 
watchman. 

By  Mr.  Ford. — Question.  Did  you  understand  the  order 
as  forbidding  all  persons  employed  by  contractors  coming 
upon  the  premises  ? 

Answer.  I did  so  understand  the  order. 

By  Mr.  Hurst. — Question.  After  the  order  was  given, 
did  you  not  see  persons  at  work  on  Sunday  in  the  shop 
of  Mr.  Duvall  ? 

Answer.  I cannot  say. 

By  Mr.  Jarrett. — Question.  Have  you  ever  expressed 
any  apprehensions  from  fire  because  of  the  condition 
of  Mr.  Duvall’s  shop. 

Answer.  I believe  I have. 

Mr.  Gambrill , recalled  by  Complainant. 

By  Mr.  Gill. — Question : Did  you  know  of  any  work  being 
done  on  Sunday  while  you  were  acting  as  watchman  ? 

Answer.  I do  not  know  of  any. 

Michael  Conner , sworn  by  Complainant. 

Examined  by  Mr.  Gill. — Question.  You  -were  the  fore- 
man of  Mr.  Duvall  in  the  manufacturing  department? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir,  from  the  28th  February,  1860.  I had 
no  knowledge  of  any  order  being  given,  except  that  no 
prisoners  should  he  worked  on  Sundays,  and  no  fires  he 
permitted  in  the  dry  houses  on  that  day. 

The  Committee  then  adjourned  until  to-morrow,  Wed- 
nesday morning,  at  10  o’clock. 


Wednesday,  July  3d,  1861. 

The  Committee  met  pursuant  to  adjournment.  Present, 
Messrs.  Sangston  and  Ford. 

Mr.  Murdock , recalled  by  Complainant. 

Examined  by  Mr.  Gill. — Question.  If  the  rules  and  regu- 
lations of  the  Penitentiary,  as  laid  down  in  the  Code  and 
printed  orders,  had  been  followed  on  the  day  when  the 
shop  of  Mr.  Duvall  was  fired,  would  not  such  fire  have 
been  prevented  in  your  opinion  ? 

Answer.  I understand  that  under  such  rules  an  officer 
should  have  had  the  supervision  of  the  prisoners,  and  if 
this  had  been  so,  it  would  he  impossible,  in  my  judgment, 
for  the  fire  to  have  occurred.  It  would  be  difficult  among 
so  large  a number  of  convicts  to  have  at  all  times  an  officer 
with  each  convict.  When  the  rules  and  regulations  were 


15 


made,  the  number  of  shops  were  less,  and  the  prisoners 
were  not  so  scattered,  although  no  difference  existed  on 
Sundays. 

Question.  Is  there,  or  not,  more  danger  on  Sundays  from 
fire  by  the  convicts  than  on  other  days  ? If  so,  state  the 
reasons  ? 

Answer.  On  Sundays  there  is  less  danger  from  accidents  ; 
hut  more  danger  from  incendiaries,  because  on  Sunday  if 
the  prisoners  are  allowed  in  the  shops  the  fire  would  not 
he  so  readily  discovered,  there  being  so  few  persons  about. 

Question.  How  long  have  you  been  employed  in  the 
Penitentiary  ? 

Answer.  The  best  part  of  ten  years,  with  very  few  in- 
tervals. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Hurst. — Question.  Were  the  pris- 
oners allowed  to  go  into  the  shops  of  Mr.  Duvall,  or  any 
of  them,  on  Sundays  ? 

Answer.  I do  not  know  that  they  were,  except  by  spe- 
cial permission,  although  I have  seen  them  in  the  shops 
on  Sunday,  and  I understood  from  Mr.  Roberts  that  it 
would  not  be  permitted  for  the  future.  I never  supposed 
that  they  were  permitted  to  enter  unless  they  had  business. 

By  Mr.  Jarrett. — Question.  So  far  as  you  know,  have  not 
the  rules  and  regulations,  as  far  as  practicable,  been  carried 
out? 

Answer.  I have  no  knowledge  of  what  the  rules  and 
regulations  are,  unless  as  printed  ; in  many  respects  they 
have  not  been  carried  out  as  printed,  in  others  they  have. 

Question.  What  is  your  opinion  of  the  general  discipline 
of  the  Institution  for  the  past  three  years  ? 

Answer.  In  some  respects  I have  considered  the  discipline 
has  been  very  good,  the  difference  between  the  present  and 
former  administrations  exists  in  the  fact,  that  I have  been 
enabled  to  compel  my  men  to  work  under  the  present  ad- 
ministration, when  they  were  disposed  to  object;  I have 
had  more  control  over  the  men ; a great  portion  of  the  dis- 
cipline of  the  Institution  I have  no  means  of  knowing  any- 
thing about,  as  it  does  not  come  under  my  supervision  or 
observation.  The  discipline  in  the  shops  under  my  control 
has  been  somewhat  better  than  under  former  administra- 
tions; I have  thought  that  the  rules  were  defective  in  not 
placing  the  watchman  on  Sundays  on  duty  at  noon  instead 
of  at  night. 

Question.  Is  it  not  an  utter  impossibility  for  the  officers 
to  have  their  eyes  on  every  prisioner  during  work  hours? 

Ansiver.  I believe  it  is. 

Question.  Was  your  shop  ever  burnt  out  by  fire? 

Ansiver.  Several  times;  in  1851  by  a very  heavy  fire;  I 
lost  all  my  machinery. 


16 


Question.  Did  you  ever  make  a claim  against  the  State 
for  damages  resulting  from  fire? 

Answer.  No.  I did  not.  At  the  fire  of  1857  the  Direc- 
tors gave  me  the  labor  of  a considerable  number  of  men, 
free  of  charge,  until  my  shops  were  re-built. 

Question.  Was  the  same  routine  in  regard  to  the  en- 
forcement of  the  rules  and  regulations  on  Sundays  carried 
out  then  as  now  ? 

Answer.  I do  not  know,  not  being  present  on  Sundays. 

Question.  Has  not  a disposition  been  manifested  always 
by  the  Board  of  Directors  and  officers  to  give  your  proper- 
ty every  protection  and  security  against  loss  by  fire? 

Ansiuer.  As  far  as  I know,  it  has. 

Cross-examined  by  A.  D.  Evans , Warden. — Question.  Do 
you  remember  of  there  ever  being  a watchman  in  the  yard 
on  Sundays  previous  to  the  fire  of  Mr.  Duvall's  shop  ? 

Answer.  I had  supposed  so  until  I ascertained  much  to 
my  surprise  about  three  years  ago,  that  the  watchman  did 
not  go  on  duty  until  Sunday  night.  I refer  to  the  watch- 
man of  the  Institution.  I do  not  know  whether  I ascer- 
tained this  fact  prior  to,  or  since  the  present  administra- 
tion. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Jarrett. — Question.  Have  you  not 
considered  that  Mr.  Duvall  kept  his  fires  at  too  great  a de- 
gree of  heat  in  the  dry  houses,  and  thereby  endangered  the 
premises  ? 

Answer.  I considered  that  at  times  he  did  keep  the  fires 
hotter  than  I deemed  prudent  to  keep  mine,  but  I had  no 
knowledge  of  the  degree  of  heat,  except  from  what  I heard 
from  others. 

By  Mr.  Evans. — Question.  What  degree  of  heat  do  you 
deem  proper  and  safe? 

Answer.  I think  it  dangerous  to  go  above  125  degrees; 
the  material  used  by  me,  however,  being  lighter  than  that 
used  by  Mr.  Duvall. 

The  testimony  for  complainant  here  closed  for  the  pres- 
ent. 

Mr.  A.D . Evans , Way  den  of  Penitentiary , sworn  for  Directors. 

Examined  by  Mr.  Jarrett. — Question.  Has  the  same  pro- 
tection been  given  to  Mr.  Duvall’s  property  as  has  been 
given  to  Mr.  Murdock’s  and  the  property  of  the  State? 

Ansiuer.  Yes,  sir,  fully  as  much,  no  complaint  of  want  of 
protection  has  ever  been  made  to  me  hy  either  Mr.  Duvall 
or  Mr.  Murdock. 

Question.  Has  any  extra  advantages  or  favors  been  ex- 
tended to  Mr.  Duvall  in  the  prosecution  of  his  business  ? 

Answer.  In  the  selection  of  good  workmen,  in  the  increase 
of  the  hours  of  labor,  when  other  contractors  did  not  desire 


17 


it;  arr  extra  officer  placed  in  the  wagon  yard  to  facilitate 
the  delivery  of  the  barrels  ; and  giving  the  convicts  their 
breakfasts  earlier,  so  that  the  time  of  labor  was  increased, 
for  the  space  of  three  days,  which  was  changed  at  Mr.  Du- 
vall's request. 

Question.  Did  not  Mr.  Duvall  keep  his  shop  in  an  unsafe 
condition,  and  did  you  not  notify  him  of  the  same? 

Ansioer.  The  shop  was  in  a very  unsafe  condition  for  a 
long  period  of  time,  so  much  so,  that  it  was  constantly 
complained  of  by  the  officer,  Mr.  Lefevre,  that  he  could  not 
perform  his  duties  as  he  would  like.  I told  Mr.  Duvall  the 
Directors  thought  his  shop  was  in  an  unsafe  condition,  and 
I thought  so  too,  and  that  the  shop  must  be  cleared;  Mr. 
Duvall  said  he  could  not  do  it,  because  he  had  no  other 
place  for  his  stuff,  and  that  the  Directors  had  no  authority 
or  control  over  his  shop,  as  the  contract  did  not  mention 
anything  of  that  character. 

Question.  Was  not  the  State  deprived  of  the  services  of 
convicts  from  accidents  occurring  in  Mr.  Duvall's  shop? 

Answer.  Yes,  of  a large  number. 

Question.  Did  you  make  it  vour  duty  or  practice  to  go 
through  Mr.  Duvall's  shop  during  the  week  and  on  Sundays 
more  than  through  other  shops? 

Ansiuer.  Some  sixor  eightweeks  prior  to  the  fire, I d id  visit 
his  shop  more  than  any  other,  because  the  shop  was  lum- 
bered more  than  formerly,  and  in  a dangerous  condition, 
and  I feared  it  might  be  fired  either  by  accident  or  design. 

Question.  While  Mr.  Duvall’s  shop  was  in  such  a condi- 
tion, was  he  not  absent  a great  part  of  the  time  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  a week  at  a time. 

William  A.  Wisong , sworn. 

Examined  by  Mr.  Hurst — Question.  Have  you  not  had 
frequent  opportunities  to  witness  the  operation  of  the  In- 
stitution, and  what  is  your  opinion  of  the  general  discipline 
of  the  same  ? 

Ansioer.  I have,  and  I believe  the  discipline  to  be  as  good 
as  that  of  any  other  of  the  kind,  and  a good  deal  better 
than  some.  I have  been  connected  with  the  Penitentiary, 
as  agent  of  the  Prison  Association,  for  two  years  past,  and 
believe  that  the  rules  are  fully  enforced. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Gill. — Question.  Did  you  ever  go 
into  the  shops  on  Sunday  ? 

Answer.  I never  did.  I visited  only  the  chapel  and  hos- 
pital on  Sundays. 

The  Committee  adjourned  to  meet  on  Friday  morning,  at 
10  o'clock.  By  order, 


2 


THOS.  H.  MOORE,  Clerk. 


18 


Baltimore,  July  5,  1861. 

The  Committee  met.  Present  Messrs.  Ford  and  Sangs- 
ton. 

Mr.  John  H.  Duvall,  sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Gill. — Question.  What  was  the  first  direction  and 
order  received  by  you  in  relation  to  the  employment  on 
Sundays  of  any  persons  acting  for  you,  and  when  and  by 
whom  ? What  was  the  second  order,  and  from  whom  and 
when  ? And  what  was  done  alter  each  of  these  orders  ? 

Answer.  Some  time  prior  to  the  accident  by  which  I was 
shot,  on  the  21st  of  April,  1861,  I received  an  order  from 
Mr.  Evans,  the  Warden  of  the  Penitentiary,  that  no  more 
work  should  be  done  in  my  shops  on  Sunday,  at  the  Peni- 
tentiary, such  as  firing  the  dry  houses,  &c.  Some  time 
prior  to  the  fire,  I do  not  know  how  long,  the  Deputy,  Mr. 
Roberts,  told  me  be  was  instructed  by  the  Committee  to 
say  to  me  that  any  watchman  or  any  of  my  men  must  not 
be  about  there  on  Sundays.  I directed  the  firing  of  dry 
houses  to  be  discontinued  on  Sundays.  It  was  discontin- 
ued. After  the  second  order  from  Mr.  Roberts,  I directed 
the  watchman,  Mr.  Gambrill,  not  to  be  there  on  Sundays 
until  the  hour  of  going  on  duty  at  evening,  which  was 
obeyed  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge. 

Question.  Did  you  employ  a watchman  to  take  care  of  the 
property  in  the  shops  carried  on  by  you  in  the  Peniten- 
tiary, and  especially  on  Sundays,  and  when  did  he  cease  to 
do  that  duty,  and  why? 

Answer.  I did  employ  a watchman  ; the  first  one,  Mr. 
Lamb,  who  continued  until  about  the  first  of  May,  1860, 
when  the  fire  of  Mr.  Murdock's  shops  occurred  ; that  one  of 
the  Directors,  Mr.  Biyson,  I think,  sent  by  Mr.  Howard 
when  I was  confined  to  bed,  that  Mr.  Lamb  ought  to  be  dis- 
charged; he  was  accordingly  discharged,  and  Mr.  Gambrill 
appointed  in  his  stead,  at  the  solicitation  of  Mr.  Bryson. 
Gambrill  continued  in  my  employment  until  the  23d  of  De- 
cember, 1860,  when  the  fire  took  place,  it  may  have  been  a 
little  later.  Gambrill’s  duty  was  to  watch  the  place  at  night 
and  on  Sundays,  and  attend  to  the  dry  houses.  The  duty 
was  performed  until  the  order  was  given  herein  before 
stated,  as  given  by  Mr.  Roberts*  After  which  order  Gam- 
brill ceased  to  be  there  on  Sunday  in  the  day  time. 

Question.  At  what  time  on  Sunday,  the  23d  of  December, 
did  the  fire  at  your  shop  occur,  and  to  what  cause  do  you 
attribute  the  same,  and  if  your  watchman  had  been  on  duty 
as  before  the  order  was  given  by  Mr.  Roberts,  would  or 
would  not  the  fire  have  been  prevented  in  your  judgment  ? 

Answer.  The  fire  occurred  on  Sunday,  23d  December, 
about  half-past  two  to  three  o’clock,  the  cause  I attribute 


19 


to  the  act  of  incendiary  convicts.  If  my  watchman  had 
been  on  duty  as  previously  to  the  order  of  Mr.  Roberts,  the 
tire  could  not  have  occurred  in  my  judgment. 

Question.  Are  you  acquainted  with  the  rules  and  regula- 
tions of  the  Maryland  Penitentiary,  and  especially  in  rela- 
tion to  convicts,  and  the  course  pursued  to  them  on  Sundays, 
and  state  what  they  were?  Also  state  if  such  rules  and 
regulations  had  been  pursued  on  Sunday,  the  23d  December, 
1860.  Would  or  would  not,  in  your  judgment,  the  tire  at 
your  shop  on  that  day  have  been  prevented  ? 

Answer . I know  of  no  rules  and  regulations  except  the 
published  ones,  a copy  of  which  was  handed  me  soon  after 
my  contract.  I have  no  information  in  regard  to  the  man- 
agement of  prisons  on  Sundays,  except  from  what  I have 
derived  from  observation.  It  is  usual  for  a portion  of  the 
negro  convicts,  some  fifteen  or  twenty  in  number,  to  be 
employed  in  cleansing  the  dormitories  and  carrying  off  the 
filth  to  the  pen  ; in  doing  which  they  have  to  pass  through 
a large  portion  of  the  yard  and  around  most  of  the  shops. 
If  properly  supervised  by  an  officer,  they  could  not  enter 
the  shops  without  the  knowledge  of  the  officer.  I think 
the  fire  would  have  been  prevented  if  the  rules  and  regula- 
tions had  been  enforced. 

The  Committee  here  adjourned  until  to-morrow  raprning 
at  10  o’clock. 


Baltimore,  July  6,  1861. 

The  Committee  met  pursuant  to  adjournment.  Present, 
Messrs.  Sangston  and  Ford. 

The  examination  of  Mr.  Duvall  resumed. 

By  Mr.  Gill. — The  particular  rule  to  which  I refer,  which, 
if  observed,  would  have  prevented  the  fire,  is  to  be  found 
in  the  Code  of  General  Laws,  Art.  73,  Sec.  82 : “ The  War- 
den must  not  permit  any  prisoners  to  be  together  at  any 
time  without  the  proper  supervision  of  an  officer.” 

Question.  Were  there  or  not  any  fires  in  and  about  your 
shop  at  the  Maryland  Penitentiary  immediately  prior  to 
the  fire  of  the  23d  December,  1860,  or  on  the  premises  con- 
nected therewith  ? How  did  the  fire  which  destroyed  your 
property  occur  as  you  have  been  advised,  and  what  were 
the  circumstances  thereof?  State  all  of  them  ? What  pre- 
cautions might  have  been  and  ought  to  have  been  taken  to 
prevent  the  convicts  from  getting  into  your  shop  on  that 
day,  and  if  taken,  what  would  probably  have  been  the  effect 
thereof? 

Ansiver.  We  were  running  our  engine  the  day  before 
(Saturday)  with  the  usual  fire,  and  on  the  same  day  some 


20 


♦ 


fire  may  have  been  in  other  stoves,  as  it  is  usual  to  have 
them  at  that  season;  all  of  which  were  extinguished,  to 
my  knowledge,  about  5 o'clock,  P.  M.,  of  that  day,  (Satur- 
day.) In  the  usual  course  of  business  there  would  be  no 
fires  during  the  whole  day  of  Sunday,  and  as  far  as  I know 
there  was  no  fire  on  that  Sunday;  but  I was  not  there  until 
after  the  fire. 

From  what  I have  learned  from  the  Deputy  Warden,  the 
fire  was  the  act  of  incendiary  convicts,  as  he  had  ascertained 
by  their  confessions,  accomplished  by  the  use  of  slow- 
matches  and  powdered  sulphur  and  rosin.  That  they  had 
applied  the  matches  in  the  early  part  of  the  day,  probably 
about  11  o'clock. 

After  Mr.  Roberts  had  ascertained  these  facts,  in  company 
with  some  of  the  officers  in  the  Warden’s  Lodge,  an  exper- 
iment was  tried  with  the  yellow  cotton  yarn,  which  the 
convicts  confessed  to  have  used  as  matches.  The  experiment 
proved  that  the  yarn  made  a good  slow-match,  and  that  it 
would  have  been  easy  to  have  communicated  the  fire  by 
such  matches. 

Th#  convicts  who  cleaned  the  dormitories  are  engaged 
on  Sundays  at  this  work  about  10 \ A.  M.,  or  later,  while 
religfjpus  services  are  performed. 

Thfe  distance  from  the  door  of  the  dormitory  to  the 
pen  re,  sav  150  to  200  yards,  this  route  would  pass  my  shop, 
and  would  also  pass  two  of  Mr.  Murdock's  shops  and  dry- 
houses,  the  State  dry-house  and  smoke-house,  and  also  Mr. 
Murdock’s  broom  corn  shed.  Convicts  passing  those  shops, 
if  properly  supervised  by  an  officer  or  officers,  could  not 
have  obtained  access  to  them. 

Question.  Who  were  interested  in  the  business  carried  on 
by  you  at  the  Maryland  Penitentiary? 

Ansiver.  My  son-in-law,  William  Howard,  and  myself 
were  interested  in  the  business  referred  to. 

Question.  What  was  the  amount  of  loss  sustained  from 
the  fire  of  the  23d  December,  1860,  by  you  and  your 
partner ; state  the  details,  and  show  how  such  loss  is 
made  up. 

Ansiver.  According  to  an  estimate  made  by  Mr.  Conner 
and  myself : 

Materials  prepared  in  the  shop,  &c.,  destroyed,  would 
have  made  up  82,500  barrels.  The  barrels  were  sold  for 
35  cents  a piece.  Hoops  and  labor  9 cents — 26  cents — 
amounting  to  $21,450.00 

Besides  on  hand  1200  barrels,  at  36  cents,  432.00 
Loss  in  machinery,  dry  houses,  cost  $9,500  worth,  7,100-00 


$28,982.00 


21 


Less  insurance  money  received,  5,600.00 

My  claim  being  $23,382.00 

Question.  What  amount  did  you  pay  the  Directors  of  the 
Maryland  Penitentiary  for  the  hire  of  convicts  prior  to  the 
fire,  and  what  did  you  pay  after  the  fire,  and  under  what 
circumstances  did  you  make  such  payment  after  the  fire  ? 

Ansioer.  During  the  contract,  and  before  the  fire,  I paid 
$7,031.07  to  the  Directors  for  labor,  &c. 

After  the  fire  I paid  $1,075.59  to  the  Directors,  accord- 
ing to  an  account  which  I produce  with  my  answer  and 
file  as  part  of  it,  (marked  A.)  The  fire  ruined  my  busi- 
ness, soon  after  which  the  Directors  desired  to  know  of  me 
what  was  my  intention  about  going  on  with  the  contract. 
I informed  them  that  our  misfortunes  at  the  fire  had  de- 
stroyed our  business,  and  I was  unable  to  do  it.  I was 
asked  the  question  by  one  of  the  Directors,  if  I was  aware 
that  I could  be  required  to  build  the  shop,  and  pay  for  the 
prisoners,  while  it  was  going  on.  This  induced  me  to  con- 
sult my  counsel,  Mr.  Grill,  who  informed  me  that  under  the 
contract  I could  be  so  held.  Mv  counsel,  therefore,  advised 
me  to  make  the  best  settlement  I could  with  the  Directors, 
and  I accordingly  did  so,  as  the  paper  alluded  to,  marked 
A,  shows. 

(A) 

Baltimore,  December  31,  1860. 
Messrs.  John  H.  Duvall  & Sons , 

In  account  with  Maryland  Penitentiary . 


Work  done  in  smithing,  October,  1860,  - - - $ 3 22 

t Water  rent  from  July  1 to  Nov.  1,  1860,  $240,  - 80.00 

Work  done  in  smithing,  November,  1860,  - - - 4.57 

Rent  from  August  31  to  Nov.  30,  I860,  $200,  - - 50.00 

Hire,  November,  1860,  - --  --  --  --  180.05 

el  from  Dec.  1,  1860,  to  22d,  inclusive,  - - 
li  l,157f  days,  at  60  cents,  - - - -3 

“ 19  “ at  25  “ -----  - 4.75 

Work  done,  December,  1860,  - - - - - - - 1.68 

Rent  from  Nov.  30  to  Dec.  31,  1860,  -----  16.67 

. “ Water  “ 1 ‘5  “ “ 40.00 


$1,075.59 

Or. 

By  101  lbs.  tobacco,  at  20  cents,  ------  20.20 


$1,055.39 


22 


Cr. 

1861.  January  30,  By  cash, 


140.00 


Cr. 

By  R.  Norris,  Jr’s.,  note,  dated  January  31,  1861, 
at  3 mos.,  for  $800,  less  interest  3 mos.,  §12, 


Received  balance  by  check,  January  31,  1861. 


$915.39 

788.00 

$127.39 


JNO.  J.  C.  DOUGHERTY,  Clerk. 


After  we  bad  agreed  on  the  terms  of  settlement,  I 
informed  the  Directors  that  my  only  means  of  payment 
was  the  property  then  on  hand,  and  not  destroyed.  I 
asked  permission  to  remove  some  of  it,  and  dispose  of  it 
for  that  purpose.  This  permission  was  refused,  and  they 
would  not  allow  me  to  do  so  until  the  settlement  was 
made. 

To  make  the  settlement  I had  to  encounter  great  incon- 
venience and  difficulty,  in  consequence  of  the  misfortune 
of  the  fire. 

Mr.  Gill,  in  his  opinion,  also  advised  that  no  suit  could 
be  maintained  against  the  State  or  the  Directors  as  such. 
If  they  could  have  been  sued,  he  would  have  advised  me  to 
bring  suit. 

Gross -examined  by  Mr.  Brune. — Question.  What  work  was 
done  on  Sundays,  before  the  order  which  you  say  was  given 
by  Mr.  Evans  ? 

Answer.  There  was  no  general  work  done  on  Sundays, 
except  making  fires  in  dry  houses.  There  was  occasionally 
other  work  done.  It  was  not  the  practice  to  do  work  on 
Sundays,  except  from  necessity.  The  orders  given  by  Mr. 
Evans  were  followed,  and  the  fires  discontinued,  so  far  as  I 
know,  after  such  order  had  been  given. 

Question.  Who  was  your  watchman  at  the  time  of  this 
order  from  Mr.  Evans,  and  when  precisely  was  this  order 
given  ? 

Answer.  Mr.  Lamb  was  the  watchman  when  the  order 
was  given  by  Mr.  Evans.  I cannot  state  more  specifically 
than  I have  done  in  my  direct  answer,  the  time  when  Mr. 
Evans  gave  the  order  referred  to. 

Question.  Why  was  Mr.  Lamb  discharged,  and  was  there 
or  not  a fire  or  fires  at  the  Penitentiary  while  he  was  your 
watchman  ? 


23 


Answer.  I do  not  know  why  Mr.  Lamb  was  discharged, 
except  as  already  stated.  There  was  only  one  fire  of  im- 
portance while  Mr.  Lamb  was  my  watchman.  That  was 
at  one  of  the  dry  houses,  and  in  January,  1860.  There 
was  nothing  that  destroyed  anything.  On  one  occasion, 
while  at  work  at  shop,  some  boards  took  fire,  and  they 
were  immediately  put  out.  Mr.  Lamb  was  not  then  pres- 
ent; beside  these  there  was  the  fire  on  Mr.  Murdock's 
premises  in  May,  1860,  and  which  led  to  Lamb’s  discharge. 

Question.  Who  were  the  Monthly  Committee  at  the  time 
the  order  of  Roberts,  spoken  of  by  you  in  answer  to  the 
first  direct  question,  was  given,  and  was  such  order  in 
writing , through  Mr.  Roberts  ? 

Answer.  I do  not  know  who  constituted  the  Monthly 
Committee  of  the  Penitentiary  when  the  order  given  to  me 
by  Roberts  was  received.  The  order  from  Roberts  was 
verbal. 

Question.  Did  you,  after  this  order  was  given  to  you  by 
Roberts,  make  any  application  to  the  Monthly  Committee 
or  to  any  of  the  Directors  in  relation  thereto,  and  if  you  did 
state  to  whom,  you  so  applied  ? 

Answer.  I did  not.  I obeyed  the  order  without  making 
any  complaint  about  it  or  seeing  any  of  the  parties. 

Question.  Did  you,  or  your  sons,  or  your  foreman  of  ma- 
chinery, Mr.  Murdock,  ever  go  into  the  shops  on  Sunday 
after  this  order  ? 

Answer.  I do  not  know  that  any  one  but  myself  did  go 
over  to  the  Penitentiary  on  Sunday  after  the  order  from 
Roberts ; I did  sometimes  go  over  on  Sunday  in  the  morn- 
ing, and  sometimes  in  the  afternoon. 

Question.  Have  jmu  any  recollection  of  Mr.  Murdock’s 
covering  a pully  with  wood  on  a Sunday? 

Answer.  I recollect  that  a pully  was  covered  with  wood 
on  Sunday  by  Mr.  Murdock,  but  I think  it  was  done  prior 
to  the  order  frornMr.  Roberts. 

Question.  Before  the  order  which  you  state  came  from 
Mr.  Roberts,  was  it  the  habit  of  Mr.  Grambrill  to  make  a 
fire  on  Saturday  night  and  keep  it  up  during  Sunday?  If 
not,  when  was  the  fire  made  on  Sunday  before  and  after  said 
order,  and  what  time  was  the  watchman  expected  to  come 
on  duty  every  day  and  go  off,  and  who  watched  while  he 
was  off  duty  ? 

Answer.  Before  the  order  from  Roberts  it  was  not  the 
habit  of  Mr.  Grambrill,  the  watchman,  to  make  up  the  fires 
on  Saturday  night  and  keep  them  up  on  Sunday.  After  the 
order  from  Mr.  Evans  the}'  stopped  firing  at  12  o’clock  on 
Saturday,  and  began  again  at  12  o’clock  on  Sunday  night. 
Some  time  after  this  ! got  permission  from  Mr.  Hilbert  to 


24 


make  the  fires  at  dark  on  Sunday  night,  and  to  stop  them 
at  daylight.  The  watchman  usually  eame  on  about  supper 
time  during  the  week,  he  would  be  thereon  Saturday  night, 
and  was  relieved  on  Sunday  morning  at  about  10  o’clock, 
when  witness  would  sometimes  relieve  him,  and  would  re- 
turn at  about  12  or  1 o’clock,  and  sometimes  later,  to  resume 
his  duties;  this  was  before  the  order  given  by  Mr.  Roberts, 
afterwards  he  quit  when  the  state  watchman  would  go  away 
in  the  morning,  and  not  return  again.  When  not  relieved 
by  witness,  the  watchman  would  go  for  his  meals  during 
Sunday  from  the  premises — before  the  order  from  Roberts. 

Question.  Why  did  you  Extinguish  the  fires  on  Saturday, 
the  22d  of  December,  at  5 P.  M.,  if  you  had  under  Mr. 
Hilbert’s  permission  right  to  continue  them  until  Sunday 
at  daylight  ? 

Ansiver.  We  had  no  fires  on  Saturday,  the  22d,  or  for 
some  days  prior  to  that  time  in  the  dry  houses.  They  had 
been  unable  for  some  weeks,  say  six  weeks,  to  procure  a sup- 
ply of  hoops,  and  during  that  time  had  not  finished  bar- 
rels. There  was  an  intermission  of  that  particular  kind  of 
work.  There  was  a good  deal  of  other  work  done,  such  as 
cutting  and  drying  timber.  They  had  kept  on  at  that  until 
every  place  was  full  where  they  could  put  it  in  the  shop 
or  dry  houses. 

Question.  Did  Mr.  Gambrill  remain  all  night  of  Satur- 
day, the  22d  of  December?  Do  you  know  wrhen  he  left  in 
the  morning  of  Sunday  ? 

Ansiver.  Mr.  Gambrill  did  remain  all  night,  so  far  as  I 
know  on  Saturday  night,  the  22d  of  December,  1860.  Ido 
not  know  when  he  left  on  Sunday  morning,  the  23d  of  De- 
cember, 1860. 

Question.  Can  you  say  from  your  own  knowledge  or  ob- 
servation that  the  negro  convicts  in  cleaning  the  domitories 
on  Sunday,  the  23d  of  December,  were  not  properl}r  super- 
vised ? 

Ansiver.  On  that  day  I was  not  present  at  the  Peniten- 
tiary until  after  the  fire  broke  out.  I cannot  say. 

Question.  With  what  Committee  or  Directors  was  the 
agreement  (A)  made? 

Ansiver.  The  agreement  was  made  at  a Board  meeting. 
Mr.  Hurst  was  present,  and  Mr.  Jarrett,  and  three  or  four 
others. 

Question.  At  the  time  this  agreement  for  settlement  with 
the  Board  was  made,  did  you  complain  of  the  orders  of 
Messrs.  Evans  and  Roberts,  or  either  of  them,  or  set  up  any 
claim  on  your  part  against  the  Directors  or  the  State  of 
Maryland  ? 


25 


Answer,  I do  not-  recollect  that  anything  was  said  about 
the  orders  of  Mr.  Evans  or  Mr.  Roberts  at  the  time  of  the 
agreement  for  settlement,  nor  did  I then  complain  of  such 
orders  or  either  of  them,  and  at  that  meeting  I did  not  set 
up  any  claim  against  the  State  or  the  Directors.  I did  not 
mean  to  speak  of  that  and  did  not. 

Question.  Did  you  not  express  to  the  Board  or  to  some 
members  of  it,  at  that  meeting  or  subsequently,  that  you 
thought  they  were  dealing  liberally  with  you,  or  words  to 
that  effect  ? 

Answer.  Wh^n  the  settlement  was  made,  I thanked  the 
Board  for  the  settlement  because  I was  glad  to  make  it  to 
enable  me  to  get  some  of  my  property  out  of  the  place  to 
live  upon. 

(Copy  of  Bond  filed.) 

Question.  Did  you  not,  subsequently  to  the  agreement  for 
a settlement,  obtain  premission  from  the  Directors  that  your 
goods  might  remain  on  the  premises  for  some  time,  and  did 
you  not  verbally  or  in  Writing  propose  to  the  Board  to  re- 
, new  your  contract  on  certain  terms? 

Answer.  At  the  time  of  the  settlement  I did  get  permis- 
sion to  permit  goods  to  remain  until  they  wished  to  re-build. 
Subsequently  I received  notice  that  the 'rent  would  be  $25 
per  week  for  the  premises  burnt.  I asked  the  Board  if  they 
would  make  a contract  with  me  on  certain  terms,  which 
they  declined. 

Question.  Where  was  your  property  insured,  and  was  the 
insurance  money  paid,  and  why  was  it  not  insured  for  a 
larger  amount? 

Answer.  The  property  was  insured  at  the  Lynchburg 
Office  and  the  Valley  Insurance  Company  at  Virginia,  and 
it  was  not  insured  for  a large  amount,  for  the  reason  that 
it  was  difficult  to  procure  good  insurance.  Application  was 
made  and  declined  by  several  offices,  because  the  risk  was 
too  great. 

The  Committee  adjourned  to  Monday  morning  next,  at 
10  o’clock. 

• By  order, 

• THOMAS  Ii.  MOORE,  Clerk. 


Monday,  July  8th,  1861. 

The  Committee  met  pursuant  to  adjournment.  Present, 
Messrs.  Sangston  and  Ford. 

The  cross-examination  of  J.  H.  Duvall  continued  by  Mr. 
Brune. 

A letter  marked  (B,)  now  exhibited  and  filed. 


26 


(B) 

Baltimore,  March  21,  1861. 

To  the  Directors  of  the  Maryland  Penitentiary : 

Gentlemen  : — 

With  the  view  of  arranging  so  as  to  enable 
me  to  make  another  contract  with  you,  I propose  to  ask  you 
the  following  questions,  viz: 

1st.  Would  you  rebuild  the  shop  so  as  to  afford  the 
largest  possible  amount  of  yard  room,  and  enable  me  there- 
by to  dispense  with  a portion  of  the  dry  finises  ; building 
say  25  or  26  feet  wide,  two  stories,  one  end  of  it  for  the 
accommodation  of  machinery,  &c.,  say  40  or  50  feet  square, 
with  celler  under  such  portion  of  it  as  might  be  wanted, 
and  shed  for  boiler  and  engine  ? 

2d.  Would  you  buy  my  boiler  and  engine  at  fair  price, 
say  $2,000,  to  be  put  and  kept  in  order  by  me,  and  to  be 
paid  for  as  may  be  agreed  by  the  labor  of  the  prisoners 
for  which  I may  contract  ? 

3d.  Would  you  contract  for,  say  thirty-five  first  class 
prisoners,  as  far  as  you  may  have  them,  the  same  as  worked  • 
for  me  before — that  I may  select,  at  fifty  cents  per  day,  and 
ten  to  fifteen  second  class  at  twenty-five  cents — this  latter 
class  to  be  healthy  and  strong,  but  say  short  term,  and  such 
as  you  always  have,  that  cannot  be  employed  to  better  ad- 
vantage, either  by  the  State  or  a contractor,  the  fifty  cent  men 
at  all  times  to  be  first  class ; and  if  upon  trial  of,  say  one 
month,  any  such  shall  be  found  not  to  answer  the  purposes 
for  which  they  were  taken,  to  be  exchanged.  All  to  work 
for. three  months,  as  they  are  taken  to  learn  at  twenty-five 
cents  per  day — I to  take  such  portion  of  them  from  time  to 
time  as  I may  require  them — and  take  all  by  a day  to  be 
agreed  upon;  and  have  the  privilege  of  increasing  from 
time  to  time,  as  I may  want  them — the  fifty  cent  men,  say 
to  the  number  of  sixty,  and  the  twenty-five  cent  men  to 
the  number  of  twenty-five  ; and  to  have  such  labor  as  may 
be  wanted  in  fitting  up  the  shop  for  commencement  without 
charge  ? 

4th.  What  will  you  charge  for  the  rent  of  the  sfiop,  and 
boiler  and  engine,  including  water  rent? 

Which  I respectfully  sumbit. 

Very  truly, 

Your  obedient  servant, 

JOHN  H.  DUYALL. 

Question.  Look  at  paper  B,  now  presented  to  you,  and 
say  whether  it  is  in  your  hand-writing. 

Answer.  It  is. 


21 


Question . Were  you  here  on  Sundays,  so  as  yourself  to 
see  the  way  in  which  the  dormitories  were  cleaned  by  the 
negroes,  as  spoken  of  in  your  examination  in  chief? 

Answer.  I have  been  present  on  Sundays  and  witnessed 
the  manner  in  which  the  negroes  carried  off  the  filth  from 
the  dormitories  to  the  filth  pens. 

Question . Did  you  ever  complain  to  the  Warden  or  Di- 
rectors, or  any  of  them,  and  if  so,  when  and  how;  that  the 
negroes  thus  engaged  were  without  the  proper  supervision 
of  officers  ? 

Answer.  I have  no  recollection  that  I ever  did. 

J.  G.  Roberts , recalled  by  Directors. 

By  Mr.  Brune. — Question.  In  your  previous  examination 
you  stated,  in  answer  to  a question  in  regard  to  the  pres- 
ent discipline  of  the  Institution — “I  think  it  might  be 
more  strict;  my  own  orders  are,  to  carry  out  the  strictest 
discipline,  and  I have  endeavored  to  do  so.”  Will  you 
explain  the  apparent  discrepancy  in  portions  of  your  said 
answer  ? 

Answer.  I meant  to  say  that  the  discipline  was  as  good 
as  it  could  be  under  existing  circumstances ; by  existing 
circumstances  I mean  the  contract  system  as  it  now  pre- 
vails; the  contract  system  has  prevailed  for  the  last  three 
years  to  my  knowledge.  I was  assistant  .Warden  nine 
years  before  the  present  term ; when  I was  first  here  no 
contract  system  prevailed. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Gill. — Question.  You  were  not 
present  when  the  fire  took  place  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  You  were  then  Deputy  Warden  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  How  long  had  you  been  absent  before  the  fire? 

Answer.  About  two  weeks. 

Question.  Whj7-  were  you  absent  so  long  ? 

Ansiver.  I had  been  confined  for  a long  time  and  obtained 
leave  of  absence  from  the  Board  for  two  weeks. 

Question.  Who  was  appointed  in  your  absence? 

Answer.  I believe  Mr.  Sparks  discharged  my  duty. 

Question.  Do  you  know  who  filled  your  position  on  the 
day  of  the  fire  ? 

Answer.  I do  not  know. 

Question.  Have  you  ever  said  to  Mr.  Charles  Murdock, 
that  if  you  had  been  present  on  the  day  of  the  fire,  the 
same  would  not  have  occurred  ? 

Answer.  I might  have  said  so,  I do  not  recollect  it ; I have 
had  frequent  conversations  with  him  on  the  subject  of  th'e 
fire. 


28 


Question.  Have  you  not  said  to  Mr.  Murdock  that  during 
your  absence  from  the  Penitentiary,  there  was  a want  of 
discipline  therein,  and  that  you  attributed  the  fire  to  such 
want  of  discipline,  and  state  what  you  did  say  to  Mr.  Mur- 
dock in  reference  to  the  discipline  of  the  Penitentiary,  and 
the  effect  thereof  in  producing  the  fire  at  Mr.  Duvall's  shop? 

Answer.  If  I did  say  so,  it  was  in  assent  to  a remark 
from  him. 

Mr.  Charles  Murdoch , recalled. 

* By  Mr.  Gill. — Question.  Had  you  any  conversation  with 
Mr.  Roberts  after,  the  fire,  relating  to  his  absence  at  the 
time  of  the  fire  at  Mr.  Duvall's  shop,  and  the  effect  thereof 
in  his  judgment,  if  so,  state  it? 

Answer.  I have  had  conversation  with  Mr.  Roberts. 

Question.  Did  Mr.  Roberts  say  to  you,  that  if  he  had  been 
present,  in  his  opinion,  the  fire  would  not  have  occurred? 

Answer.  I have  heard  Mr.  Roberts  express  his  opinion, 
that  if  he  had  been  here,  the  fire  would  not  have  occurred. 
I understood  him  to  mean  if  he  had  been  on  duty.  I never 
heard  him  say  specifically  why  the  fire  would  not  have  oc- 
curred, if  he  had  been  present. 

Mr.  Gill  here  exhibits  and  filed  a printed  copy  of  the 
rules  and  regulations  for  the  government  of  the  Maryland 
Penitentiary,  1853. 

(C) 

The  officers  are  required  to  preserve  harmony  and  kind 
feelings  among  themselves,  to  the  end  that  a desirable  offi- 
cial intercourse  may  obtain.  They  must,  therefore,  be  re- 
spectful in  their  intercourse  and  communications  with  each 
other,  and  indulge  in  no  undue  liberties. 

The  Deputy  Keepers  must  yield  that  ready  obedience  to 
their  superior  officers,  so  necessary  to  secure  the  beneficial 
results  of  effective  co-operation  and  good  government. 

Whenever  a Deputy  Keeper  may  be  absent  from  sickness, 
or  other  necessary  cause,  the  Warden  shall  designate  one  of 
the  approved  supernumeraries  to  take  his  place,  at  such 
Deputy  Keeper's  expense. 

Mr.  Conner  recalled  and  cross-examined  by  Mr.  Brune. — 
Question.  What  were  Mr.  Gambrill’s  duties  as  watchman 
after  he  came  and  down  to  the  time  of  the  fire;  was  he  a 
day  or  night  watchman,  and  what  were  his  hours  for  going 
on  ,and  coming  off  duty  ? 

Ansiuer.  I understood  the  duties  of  Mr.  Gambrill,  during 
the  time  that  staves  were  in  the  dry  houses,  to  keep  up 
fires  and  to  get  steam  on  the  steam  boxes  in  the  morning, 
so  that  the  men  could  get  to  work.  On  Saturday  evening 


29 


or  Sunday  morning,  after  the  boiler  was  “ blown  off,”  be 
cleaned  the  boiler  out,  no  change  took  place  in  the  duty 
that  I am  aware  of  down  to  the  time  of  the  fire.  I never 
considered  him  a day  watchman,  lie  would  generally  go 
on  duty  about  the  time  the  men  would  leave  off  work,  about 
supper  time.  I was  never  present  when  he  came  off  duty 
in  the  morning. 

Question.  At  what  time  did  you  come  on  duty  in  the 
morning  ? 

Answer.  I generally  came  on  at  6^  to  7 o’clock  in  the 
morning. 

Question.  Was  Gambrill  generally  gone  when  you  came 
on  duty  ? 

Answer.  He  Was,  every  day  excepting  when  Mr.  Mur- 
dock was  away  ; this  does  not  apply  to  Sundays.  It  was 
very  rarely  I came  on  Sundays. 

Question.  Did  you  make  any  examination  of  the  proper- 
ty manufactured  and  the  machinery  remaining  after  the 
fire.  If  so,  state  for  what  purpose,  and  was  it  carefully 
done  and  in  connection  with  Mr.  Duvall  P 

Answer.  I made  an  examination  of  the  loss  in  stock  at 
Mr.  Duvall’s  request,  for  the  Insurance  Company ; it  was 
carefully  done. 

Question.  Will  you  he  so  good  as  to  state  to  the  Commit- 
tee, as  well  as  you  now  can,  the  result  of  such  inquiry  and 
the  statement  of  loss  to  the  stock  ? 

Answer.  The  statement  prepared  for  Insurance  Company 
made  the  amount  of  stock  in  the  main  shop  to  be  one  mil- 
lion of  pieces,  from  what  I could  understand  from  Mr.  Du- 
vall and  his  sons,  we  estimated  these  pieces  to  be  $7  per 
thousand  pieces,  were  dried  and  ready,  the  greater  portion 
to  put  in  barrels.  We  estimated  either  90  or  95  thousand 
pieces  were  not  damaged,  there  were  four  dry  houses,  two 
were  destroyed  entirely  and  two  damaged,  one  damaged  to 
the  extent  of  one-half.  In  two  of  the  houses  I considered  a 
total  loss  had  occurred;  I considered  the  loss  to  be  200,000 
pieces,  at  $7  per  thousand,  $14,000.  For  the  other  two 
houses  I considered  the  loss  to  be  one  half,  making  $700 
of  loss.  1,200  barrels  fully  completed  were  ready  for 
delivery,  with  the  exception  of  a few  hoops,  the  vaiue  of 
each  barrel  I believed  to  be  35  to  36  cents  per  barrel.  I 
did  not  make  an  examination  of  the  loss  to  the  machinery, 
that  was  done  by  Messrs.  Denrnead  and  Pool. 

Question.  Was  the  property  remaining  or  any  part  of  it 
sold,  and  if  so,  to  whom,  and  for  about  what  amount? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir,  the  barrels  on  hand,  those  not  burnt 
entirely  through  were  sold  to  Mr.  Everitt  at  12|  cents  per 
barrel;  I think  between  500  or  600  were  sold  him;  they 


30 


were  sold  for  about  $60.  I understood  from  Mr.  Duvall 
that  he  sold  all  the  leavings  or  remnants  for  $ i 00  ; the 
cost  of  the  labor  of  cleaning  up  the  remains  of  the  fire 
would  have  been  much  more  than  he  received  from  the 
sale. 


Examination  resumed  by  Mr.  Gill. 

Question.  How  many  barrels  would  the  stuff  destroyed 
by  the  fire  have  made  ? 

Ansiver.  According  to  the  estimate  made  for  the  Insu- 
rance Company,  about  46,154  barrels. 

Question.  Did  that  estimate  include  the  whole  quantity 
destroyed  ? 

Answer.  It  did  not,  because  Mr.  Duvall  said  that  the 
amount  of  loss  was  so  far  above  the  insurance,  it  was  un- 
necessary for  me  to  go  fully  into  the  examination. 

Question.  Was  or  not,  in  your  judgment,  a mucli  larger 
amount  of  stuff*  destroyed  than  covered  by  estimate  of 
insurance,  and  how  much  more? 

Answer.  I believe  there  was  more,  but  how  much  more  I 
am  unable  to  say. 

Question.  Do  you  recollect  having  any  conversation  with 
Mr.  Duvall  shortly  prior  to  his  application  to  the  Legisla- 
ture, in  relation  to  the  amount  of  stuff  lost  by  the  fire,  as 
compared  with  estimate  made  to  Insurance  Company,  and 
wdiat  amount  of  barrels  you  stated  to  him  the  stuff  would 
have  made  up. 

Answer.  I remember  having  a conversation  with  Mr. 
Duvall  upon  the  subject,  and  in  that  interview  he  exhibit- 
ed some  papers,  among  which  was  the  estimate  that  had 
been  made  to  the  Insurance  Company,  another  was  an  es- 
timate to  prove  to  the  Legislature  Committee,  and  by  whom 
the  amount  of  stuff  he  . had  on  hand,  and  the  number  of 
barrels  he  could  have  made.  I do  not  remember  to  have 
expressed  any  opinion  as  to  the  number  of  barrels  that 
could  have  been  made.  Before  and  subsequent  to  the  fire 
it  was  commonly  observed  among  us,  that  we  had  stuff 
enough  to  make  100,000  barrels,  but  it  was  not  my  opin- 
ion ; I do  not  believe  it  would  have  made  one-half  of  that 
number,  if  that.  Mr.  Duvall  had  contracted  to  sell  the 
barrels  to  two  parties  at  36  cents,  and  to  one  other  party 
at  35  cents  per  barrel.  I estimate  the  cost  of  finishing 
each  barrel  about  9 to  10  cents.  I have  no  knowledge  of 
the  agreement  by  which  Mr.  Duvall  employed  Mr.  Gam- 
brill.  I am  now  a substitute  officer  in  the  employment  of 
the  Penitentiary. 


31 


John  R.  Hynson , sivorn . 

Question.  Are  you  now  an  officer  of  the  Maryland  Peni- 
tentiary, what  office  do  you  hold,  and  how  long  have  you 
held  it? 

Answer.  I am  an  officer  of  the  Maryland  Penitentiary, 
and  have  been  watchman  of  the  yard  since  May,  1860. 

Question.  Did  you  know  Mr.  Gambrill,  who  was  formerly 
in  the  employ  of  Mr.  Duvall?  If  so,  will  you  state  when 
he  was  in  the  habit  of  going  on  and  coming  off  duty ; 
state  particularly  when  he  went  on  on  Saturday  evening, 
and  when  he  went  off  on  Sunday  mornings  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir;  he  would  go  on  duty  usually  about 
the  time  of  locking  up  in  the  evening,  and  he  came  off 
when  Mr.  Duvall’s  hands  went  to  work.  On  Saturday 
evening  he  would  go  on  about  the  usual  time;  on  Sunday 
morning  he  would  go  off  duty  some  time  before  I did.  I 
went  off  on  Sunday  morning  at  7 o’clock ; I was  a night 
watchman. 

Question.  Was  Mr.  Gambrill  in  the  habit  at  any  time, 
while  he  was  in  the  employ  of  Mr.  Duvall,  of  coming  to 
the  Institution  on  Sundays  after  he  left  in  the  morning, 
before  the  evenings  when  you  came  ? 

Answer.  I never  saw  him  at  the  Penitentiary  on  Sunday 
mornings,  as  I was  not  here  myself;  although  I have 
heard  him  say  he  had  attended  and  cleaned  the  boilers,  we 
would  frequently  come  together  when  about  to  go  on  duty 
for  the  night. 

Question.  Where  did  he  get  his  meals  on  Sundays;  and 
is  it  not  necessary  for  a night  watchman  to  get  rest  during 
each  day  ? 

Answer.  As  far  as  I know  he  did  not  get  them  in  the 
Institution  on  Sunday.  It  is  necessary  for  a night  watch- 
man to  get  rest  during  the  day. 

By  Mr.  Sangston. — 1 do  not  think  that  I ever  came  to 
the  Institution  on  Sundays. 

Mr.  A.  D.  Evans , Warden , recalled. 

Question.  What  time  did  Mr.  Gambrill  leave  the  Insti- 
tution usually  on  Sunday  mornings?  Where  did  he  get 
his  meals,  and  when  did  he  usually  return,  and  state  your 
means  of  knowledge  ? 

Ansiver.  Mr.  Gambrill  would  leave  the  Institution  in  the 
morning  about  7 o’clock,  and  would  leave  about  the  same 
time  on  Sundays  as  on  week  days.  He  did  not  get  his 
meals  at  the  Institution.  He  usually  returned  a little  be- 
fore dusk,  although  I have  seen  him  here  somewhat  earlier. 
My  means  of  knowledge  are  derived  from  personal  obser- 
vation. 


32 


Question : Had  you  ever  any  knowledge  that  Messrs. 
Lainb  and  Gambrill  were  day  watchmen  for  Mr.  Duvall  ? 

Answer.  I never  knew  it;  I did  know  that  they  were 
night  watchmen. 

Win.  J.  Bryson , a Director , sioorn. 

Question.  Had  you  ever  notice  in  any  way  from  Mr.  Du- 
vall, or  did  you  know  in  any  way  that  Mr.  Gambrill  or 
Mr.  Lamb  had  been  appointed  day  watchmen  by  him,  or 
that  it  was  part  of  their  duty  to  watch  the  premises  occu- 
pied by  Mr.  Duvall  during  the  day  time  on  Sundays  ? 

Answer.  I never  did  ; I was  here  a great  deal  on  Sun- 
days, and  I never  saw  Mr.  Gambrill  on  Sundays,  with  one 
or  two  exceptions.  I solicited  the  appointment  of  Mr. 
Gambrill  as  a watchman,  and  I always  supposed  his  posi- 
tion to  be  a night  watchman. 

John  Hilbert , a Director , sworn. 

Question.  Had  you  ever  notice  in  any  way  from  Mr.  Du- 
vall, or  did  you  know  in  any  way  that  Mr.  Gambrill  or 
Mr.  Lamb  had  been  appointed  day  watchmen  by  him,  or 
that  it  was  part  of  their  duty  to  watch  the  premises  occu- 
pied by  Mr.  Duvall  during  the  day  time  on  Sundaj^s  ? 

Answer.  I never  had  notice  of  such  fact ; I am  seldom 
absent  on  Sundays,  and  never  yet  saw  Mr.  Gambrill  on 
duty  on  Sundays.  I visit  the  Institution  generally  between 
9 and  10  o’clock  in  the  morning,  and  leave  between  12  and 
1 o’clock.  I have  frequently  visited  Mr.  Duvall’s  shop  on 
Sundays,  and  complained  of  the  hands  doing  work  on  that 
day  ; it  was  on  account  of  this  work  a resolution  passed 
the  Board  instructing  the  Monthly  Committee  to  notify  the 
Warden  to  stop  all  work  of  convicts  on  Sunday.  I cannot 
fix  the  time  of  the  resolution. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  GUI. — The  directions  given  by 
the  Board  was,  that  no  convicts  could  be  worked  on  Sun- 
days, and  that  no  fire  should  be  allowed  in  the  dry  houses  ; 
the  resolution  referred  to  was  passed  29th  of  March,  1860, 
upon  reference  to  the  proceedings  of  the  Board  of  that  day, 
and  reads  as  follows : 

<c Resolved , That  on  and  after  this  date  there  be  no  fire 
allowed  either  in  the  State’s  or  any  other  dry  houses  on 
the  Sabbath  day;  nor  shall  the  prisoners  be  allowed  to 
work  on  the  Sabbath.” 

Question.  Was  any  other  resolution  passed  restricting  the 
said  work  except  the  one  of  29th  of  March,  1860  ? 

Ansiver.  None  that  I am  aware  of. 


33 


Lefevre  Jarrett , a Director , sworn. 

Examined  by  Wm.  Brune. — Had  you  ever  notice  in  any 
way  from  Mr.  Duvall,  or  did  you  know  in  any  way  that 
Mr.  Gambrill  or  Mr.  Lamb  had  been  appointed  day  watch- 
men  by  him,  or  that  it  was  part  of  their  duty  to  watch  the 
the  premises  occupied  by  Mr.  Duvall  during  the  day  time 
on  Sundays  ? 

Answer.  I had  no  notice  of  such  fact.  I always  regard- 
ed the  appointment  of  Mr.  Gambrill  as  a night  watch- 
man. 

Question.  Was  any  other  resolution  passed  by  the  Board 
restricting  the  work  on  Sundays  except  the  one  of  29th  of 
March,  1860? 

Answer.  None  that  I am  aware  of. 

Mr.  Richard  Middleton , a Director ; sworn . 

Question.  Had  you  ever  notice  in  any  way  from  Mr.  Du- 
vall, or  did  you  know  in  any  way  that  Mr.  Gambrill  or 
Mr.  Lamb  had  been  appointed  day  watchmen  by  him,  or 
that  it  was  part  of  their  duty  to  watch  the  premises  occu- 
pied by  Mr.  Duvall  during  the  day  time  on  Sundays? 

Answer.  I had  no  notice  of  such  fact.  I always  supposed 
they  were  night  watchmen. 

Question.  Was  any  other  resolution  passed  by  the  Board 
restricting  the  work  on  Sundays,  except  the  one  of  29th  of 
March,  1860? 

Answer.  None  that  I am  aware  of. 

Mr.  Hilbert  recalled  by  Mr.  Brune. 

Question.  Please  state  as  to  the  regulation  on  Sundays 
in  regard  to  watching  the  wall  and  yard,  and  particularly 
during  the  religious  services  at  the  Institution  ?.  State 
when  the  prisoners  are  locked  up  on  Sundays? 

Answer.  The  watch  goes  on  the  wall  the  same  on  Sun- 
days as  during  the  week  ; some  of  the  prisoners  attending 
Sunday  School  are  let  out  of  the  dormitories  sooner  than 
those  who  do  not ; the  religious  services  commence  at  quar- 
ter past  10  o’clock,  A.  M.,  where  all  are  required  to  be,  with 
the  exception  of  those  engaged  in  cleaning  the  dormitory 
and  old  buildings.  All  at  Sunday  School  and  at  church 
are  under  the  supervision  of  officers.  The  prisoners  go 
direct  from  church  to  the  refectory  for  dinner,  and  after 
dinner  to  their  cells,  where  they  are  locked  up. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Gill. — Question.  Were  you  pres- 
ent on  the  day  of  the  fire  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir.  1 was  there  until  nearly  1 o’clock. 

I do  not  know  what  officer  was  present  or  had  charge  of 
the  convicts  who  were  employed  on  that  day  in  cleaning 


34 


the  dormitories.  I do  not  recollect  seeing  any  officers. 
Mr.  Sparks  acted  as  Deputy  Warden  during  Mr.  Roberts' 
absence. 

Question . Is  it  not  the  rule  that  all  persons  cleaning  the 
dormitories  are  placed  in  the  charge  of  an  officer?  Have 
you  any  doubt  that  an  officer  was  so  employed  on  the  day 
of  the  fire  ? 

Answer.  It  is  the  rule,  and  I have  no  doubt  that  an  offi- 
cer was  so  employed  on  the  day  of  the  fire. 

Question.  If  the  officer  in  charge  bad  accompanied  the 
convicts  engaged  in  cleaning  the  same  from  the  dormitory 
to  the  filth  pen,  could  those  convicts  thus  employed  have 
entered  Mr.  Duvall’s  shop  and  set  it  on  fire  without  his 
knowledge  ? 

Answer . I cannot  answer,  because  I do  not  know  whether 
the  convicts  set  the  shop  on  fire  or  how  it  originated. 

Mr.  Hurst , a Director , sworn. 

By  Mr.  Brune. — Question.  Had  you  ever  notice  in  any 
way  from  Mr.  Duvall,  or  did  you  know  in  any  way  that 
Mr.  Gambrill  or  Mr.  Lamb  had  been  appointed  day  watch- 
men by  him,  or  that  it  was  part  of  their  duty  to  watch 
the  premises  occupied  by  Mr.  Duvall  during  the  day  time 
on  Sunday  ? 

Answer.  I never  had  such  notice  or  knowledge. 

Question.  Were  you  not  one  of  the  Committee,  and  per- 
sonally engaged  in  making  the  agreement  of  settlement 
between  Mr.  Duvall  and  the  Board,  and  had  you  not  fre- 
quent interviews  with  Mr.  Duvall  in  relation  to  said  agree- 
ment, and  did  he  to  you  or  to  the  Board  up  to  the  time  of 
such  settlement  complain  of  the  action  of  the  Board  in  con- 
nection with  his  loss  by  the  fire  ? State  all  that  you  think 
important  in  relation  to  such  agreement  of  settlement  ? 

Ansiuer.  I was  appointed  by  the  Board  of  Directors  to 
effect  a settlement  or  compromise  with  Mr.  Duvall,  sub- 
ject to  the  ratification  of  the  Board;  Iliad  frequent  inter- 
views with  him,  he  never  complained  to  me  of  the  actiou 
of  the  Board,  but  thanked  me  and  the  Board,  through  me, 
for  our  liberality  in  settling  with  him.  and  I never  knew 
that  he  set  up  any  claim  against  the  Board  or  the  State 
until  I saw  the  application  in  the  newspapers. 

Question.  Were  you  on  the  Committee  to  investigate  the 
cause  of  the  fire  on  Mr.  Duvall’s  premises,  of  which  a re- 
port was  made  to  the  Board  on  the  IT th  of  January,  1861  ? 
If  so,  state  whether  any  and  what  specific  charges  of  ne- 
glect of  duty  were  proved  to  the  Committee  in  reference  to 
officers  Mills  and  Suter  ? 


35 


Answer.  I was  on  the  Committee ; it  is  the  duty  of  the 
wall  guard  to  he  on  duty  when  ever  the  prisoners  are  not 
in  their  cells,  and  it  is  not  expected  that  the  officer  who 
has  charge  of  the  men  cleaning  the  dormitory  to  follow  ev- 
ery man  as  he  goes  to  the  filth  pen,  hut  that  they  are  un- 
der the  supervision  of  the  wall  guards.  That  although 
there  was  no  proof  against  the  guard  named  Wills,  I 
thought  proper  to  suspend  him  for  three  days.  Mr.  Suter 
was  a substitute,  acting  as  a wall  guard,  at  the  time  of  the 
fire.  I dismissed  him,  believing  it  would  increase  the  effi- 
ciency of  the  officers. 

Mr.  Gill  here  files  an  extract  from  the  proceedings  of  the 
Board  of  January  17,  1861,  marked  (D.) 

(D) 

Copy  from  Proceedings  of  the  Board , 

January  Ylth,  1861. 

Your  Committee  ordered  a thorough  examination  into 
the  cause  of  the  fire,  and  placed  the  examination  in  the 
hands  of  the  Warden  and  Deputy- War  den,  which  was  con- 
ducted in  a manner  so  skilful  as  to  meet  our  warm  appro- 
bation, and  resulted  in  the  fact,  that  the  place  was  set  on 
fire  by  four  prisoners,  all  colored,  viz  : Joseph  Wheatly, 

John  Madison, Butler,  Samuel  Green  and  E.  Perry, 

who  have  all  acknowledged  their  guilt.  We  are  indebted 
to  prisoners  Burkhiser  and  Offutt  for  valuable  infor- 
mation. 

In  this  connection,  we  have  suspended  officers  Wills 
and  dismissed  substitute  Suter  for  inattention  and  neglect 
of  duty  while  on  the  wall  the  morning  of  the  fire. 

In  connection  with  Col.  Chesnut,  appointed  by  the 
Board,  and  with  the  assistance  of  Messrs.  Middleton  and 
Hilbert,  we  have  settled  all  differences  existing  between 
the  State  and  Messrs.  Murdock  and  Duvalls  by  first  call- 
ing to  our  aid  the  professional  advice  and  assistance  of 
F.  W.  Brune,  Esq.,  of  the  firm  of  Brown  & Brune,  At- 
torney s-at-Law.  With  Mr.  Murdock  we  have  agreed  to 
terminate  his  old  contract  of  one  hundred  men,  and  to 
make  a new  one  for  the  same  number  of  hands  from  the 
1st  January,  1861,  for  four  years,  giving  Mr.  Murdock 
power  to  terminate  the  same  on  the  1st  of  July,  1861,  or 
the  1st  of  January,  1862,  by  his  giving  us  the  three 
months’  notice  of  the  same. 

We  have  made  two  propositions  to  Mr.  J.  H.  Duvall, 
to  which  he  promptly  accorded,  but  he  has  not  yet  in- 
formed us  which  one  he  would  select ; we  to  terminate  the 


36 


contract  of  Mr.  Duvall  upon  his  paying  the  rent  of  his 
shop,  the  hire  of  his  men  and  water  rent  to  January  1st, 
1861,  or  to  surrender  to  the  State  the  bricks  in  his  dry 
house,  and  to  pay  his  hire  of  prisoners  up  to  the  date  of 
the  fire,  to  wit : the  23d  December,  1860,  and  water  rent 
of  shop  to  1st  January,  1861. 

The  sixty  hands  that  has  been  returned  to  the  State 
upon  the  termination  of  the  above  contract  we  are  placing 
on  the  looms  as  fast  as  circumstances  will  permit. 

Question . Will  you  state  to  the  Committee  the  value  to 
the  State  of  Maryland,  in  a financial  point  of  view,  of  the 
contract  system  in  the  management  of  the  Maryland  Peni- 
tentiary, and  how  long  such  system  has  continued  here, 
and  state  also  how  the  sums  realized  by  the  Institution 
under  the  contracts  made  by  the  present  administration, 
until  the  commercial  and  political  troubles  of  the  country 
arose,  will  compare  with  the  amounts  received  under  pre- 
vious administrations? 

Answer.  I consider  the  contract  system  has  been  a bene- 
fit, in  a financial  point  of  view.  It  went  into  operation  a 
short  time  before  the  present  Board  came  into  power.  The 
Institution  under  the  contract  system,  which  we  increased 
more  than  double  after  we  came  here,  came  nearer  paying 
the  expenses  of  the  same  than  formerly.  I did  not  con- 
sider the  contract  with  Mr.  Duvall  as  profitable,  for  many 
reasons.  From  the  nature  of  the  employment,  extra  cloth- 
ing was  required  by  the  convicts,  and  they  were  subject  to 
casualties. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Gill. — Question.  In  the  conversa- 
tion you  had  with  Mr.  Duvall  prior  to  or  at  the  time  of  the 
settlement  testified  to  by  you,  was  anything  said  in  rela- 
tion to  the  cause  of  the  fire  at  Mr.  Duvall’s  shop  ? 

Ansiver.  I think  not. 

Question.  Were  you  not  aware  that,  owing  to  the  loss 
Mr.  Duvall  sustained  by  fire,  that  he  had  no  other  means 
to  rebuild  and  carry  out  the  first  contract? 

Answer.  I had  no  knowledge  of  Mr.  Duvall’s  means,  any 
further  than  that  I heard  him  say  that  his  all  was  invested 
in  the  business. 


37 


To  the  General  Assembly  of  the  State  of  Maryland : 

The  Memorial  of  Charles  Murdock,  of  the  City  of  Bal- 
timore, respectfully  represents  that  he  has  been  for  some 
years  engaged  in  the  business  of  manufacturing  brooms 
and  wood-ware,  and  to  enable  him  to  conduct  this  business, 
he  has  heretofore  made  various  contracts  with  the  Direc- 
tors of  the  Maryland  Penitentiary  for  the  rent  of  shops 
of  the  Penitentiary  and  ground  belonging  to  the  Peniten- 
tiary, on  which  your  memorialist  built  shops,  and  for  the 
hire  of  convicts  in  the  said  Penitentiary,  to  be  employed 
in  the  said  manufacture ; that  your  memorialist  com- 
menced the  said  business  in  the  year  1850  on  the  said 
Penitentiary  grounds,  and  has  continued  ever  since,  under 
various  written  contracts,  which  he  is  prepared  to  present 
at  the  proper  time  and  place,  and  is  still  so  engaged  ; that 
various  questions  have  arisen  between  your  memorialist 
and  the  Directors  of  the  Maryland  Penitentiary,  about 
which  your  memorialist,  although  believing  himself  to  be 
in  the  right,  has  yet  been  compelled  to  submit  to  the  de- 
cision of  that  body,  having  no  tribunal  or  third  party  to 
whom  he  could  appeal. 

Your  memorialist  further  states,  that  he  has  invested  a 
large  sum  of  money  in  the  Penitentiary  grounds,  in  build- 
ings, machinery,  &c.,  and  has  paid  annually  large  sums 
of  money  to  the  Directors  of  the  said  Penitentiary,  and 
for  the  last  year  nearly  the  entire  income  thereof  has  been 
derived  from  the  payments  made  by  your  memorialist, 
arising  from  the  rent  of  buildings  and  employment  of  con- 
victs by  him  ; the  amount  paid  by  your  memorialist  from 
April,  1860,  to  April,  1861,  being  $21,811.43. 

Your  memorialist  further  states,  that  at  the  present 
time  a difference  exists  between  your  memorialist  and  the 
said  Directors  in  relation  to  the  present  indebtedness  by 
your  memorialist  to  them  ; that  your  memorialist  has 
offered  to  pay  all  he  now  owes,  but  this  has  been  refused, 
and  a large  amount  claimed,  which  is  denied  to  be  due  by 
your  memorialist ; and  the  Directors  of  the  said  Peniten- 
tiary have  refused  to  permit  your  memorialist  to  remove 
any  of  his  manufactured  articles  from  the  said  Penitentiary 
until  he  pays  an  amount  which  he  believes  not  to  be  due, 
and  which  the  Directors  have,  in  his  view,  no  right  to 
exact  or  claim  ; and  that  thereby  his  business  has  been 
seriously  injured. 

Your  memorialist  further  states,  that  owing  to  the  change 
of  times  which,  as  is  well  known,  has  effected  all  kinds  of 
business  and  the  value  of  all  property,  your  memorialist 
has  found  himself  unable  to  conduct  the  business  at  the 


38 


Penitentiary,  and  to  employ,  according  to  the  terms  of  his 
contract,  the  number  of  convicts  agreed  upon  and  as  reg- 
ularly as  agreed  upon  ; that  your  memorialist  has  been 
unable  to  obtain  the  necessary  supply  of  materials  for 
manufacturing  purposes,  owing  to  the  fact  that,  by  the 
existence  of  war  and  the  blockade  of  ports,  this  supply 
has  been  cut  off,  and  that  even  if  this  difficulty  were  re- 
moved, it  would  be  found  to  be  impossible,  or  nearly  so, 
to  dispose  of  the  articles  when  manufactured,  because  the 
usual  and  customary  markets  are  closed  against  their 
reception. 

Your  memorialist,  finding  himsef  thus  deprived  of  the 
power  to  continue  the  manufacture  of  goods  at  the  Mary- 
land Penitentiary  according  to  his  contracts,  has  applied 
to  the  Directors  thereof  for  a modification  of  his  contracts, 
but  in  vain  ; they  insist  upon  a literal  compliance  there- 
with, even  if  by  so  doing  your  memorialist  will  be  ruined  ; 
that  finding  no  relief  can  be  had  from  the  Directors,  your 
memorialist  has  appealed,  as  he  now  does,  to  your  Honor- 
able Body  for  relief  in  the  premises  ; and  he  now  prays 
that  such  a settlement  shall  be  made  as  to  you  may  seem 
just,  and  that  such  modifications  and  alterations  in  his 
contracts  may  be  made  as  will  do  justice  to  both  parties, 
and  at  the  same  time  secure  to  the  State  such  income  and 
revenue  as  can  be  obtained  from  the  Maryland  Penitentiary 
in  the  existing  circumstances  and  condition  of  the  country. 

Your  memorialist  would  further  state,  that  owing  to 
causes  already  set  forth,  he  will  be  compelled,  unless  some 
material  change  be  made  in  his  arrangements  with  the 
Directors  of  the  Maryland  Penitentiary,  or  some  unex- 
pected change  should  take  place  in  the  affairs  of  the  coun- 
try, to  discontinue  his  manufacturing  business  at  the  Pen- 
itentiary, in  which  event  there  will  necessarily  be  a large 
loss  in  the  revenues  heretofore  derived  from  that  Institution. 

CHAKLES  MUKDOCK. 


To  the  General  Assembly  of  the  State  of  Maryland : 

The  Memorial  of  John  H.  Duvall  and  William  Howard 
respectfully  states,  that  on  the  fourth  day  of  October,  in 
the  year  of  our  Lord,  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  fifty- 
nine,  one  of  your  memorialists — viz.,  John  H.  Duvall — 
entered  into  an  agreement  with  the  Directors  of  the  Ma- 
ryland Penitentiary  to  rent  the  blacksmith’s  shop  at  the 
Penitentiary  grounds,  in  the  city  of  Baltimore,  and  cer- 
tain yard  room  for  the  storage  of  wood,  and  for  hiring  of 
thirty  male  convict  prisoners,  to  be  employed  in  the  man- 


39 


ufacturing  of  barrels,  with  the  privilege  of  increasing  the 
number  of  convicts,  the  particulars  of  which  agreement 
will  appear  by  the  written  agreement  entered  into,  a copy 
of  which  is  hereto  annexed,  and  the  original  of  which 
will  be  produced  whenever  called  for. 

Your  memorialists  further  state  that,  after  making  the 
said  agreement,  the  said  John  H.  Duvall  became  connected 
in  the  business  of  manufactoring  barrels  with  the  said 
William  Howard,  who  furnished  capital  to  carry  on  the 
same — that  your  memorialists  invested  at  the  said  Peniten- 
tiary, in  machinery,  buildings  and  fixtures  necessary  for 
their  business,  more  than  eight  thousand  dollars  in  addi- 
tion to  the  value  of  patent  rights  and  materials  for  manu- 
facturing— that  they  continued  to  perform  the  agreement 
entered  into  by  John  H.  Duvall  until  the  23d  December, 
1860,  and  paid  from  the  time  of  making  the  said  agreement 
and  the  said  23d  December,  1860,  for  the  labor  of  the  pri- 
soners employed  by  them  the  sum  of  $7,031.07 — that  on 
Sunday,  the  23d  December,  1860,  their  shops  were  fired 
by  incendiary  convicts  and  their  contents  nearly  destroyed, 
and  that  the  loss  sustained  by  your  memorialists  amounts 
to  $23,150. 

Your  memoralists  further  state,  that  after  making  the 
said  agreement  by  the  said  John  H.  Duvall,  your  memor- 
alists, believing  it  to  be  proper  to  do  so,  employed  a watch- 
man to  guard  their  property  at  the  Penitentiary  during 
the  night,  and  on  Sundays  during  the  day  time,  that  while 
this  watchman  remained  in  charge  and  on  duty  no  damage 
was  done,  hut  that  prior  to  the  fire,  which  occurred,  as 
aforesaid,  notice  was  given  to  your  memorialists  through 
the  Deputy  Warden,  Isaac  G-.  Koberts,  by  the  monthly 
Committee  of  the  Penitentiary,  that  their  watchman  would 
not  be  permitted  to  be  at  their  shop  in  the  Penitentiary 
on  Sundays,  and  your  memorialists  were  thereby  required 
to  withdraw  their  watchman  on  Sundays,  which  they  ac- 
cordingly did,  being  compelled  to  obey  such  order — that 
their  property  was  fired  and  burned  on  Sunday,  23d  De- 
cember, 1860,  by  a portion  of  the  convicts  at  the  said  Pen- 
itentiary, which  would  have  doubtless  been  prevented  if 
their  watchman  had  been  at  his  post  and  on  duty  as  he 
had  been  prior  to  the  time  of  giving  the  aforesaid  order, 
not  to  be  on  duty  on  Sundays. 

Your  memorialists  further  represent,  that  after  they  had 
been  prevented  by  the  order  of  the  Monthly  Committee  of 
the  Penitentiary  from  having  their  private  watchman  on 
the  premises  on  Sundays,  they  had  a right  to  expect,  and 
did  expect  and  believe  that  the  vigilance  and  activity  of 
the  officers  of  the  Penitentiary  in  guarding  and  taking 


40 


care  of  their  property  at  the  Penitentiary  on  Sundays 
would  he  increased,  hut  on  the  contrary,  when  on  Sunday, 
the  23d  December,  1860,  the  fire  took  place,  there  was  no 
proper  or  sufficient  care  taken  ; and  it  was  owing  to  the 
gross  remissness  and  negligence  of  these  officers  that  these 
convicts  at  the  Penitentiary  obtained  access  to  the  work 
shops,  and  thus  were  able  to  set  fire  to  them  and  reduce 
them  to  ashes. 

Your  memorialists  further  state,  that  the  rules  and  regu- 
lations prescribed  for  the  government  of  the  Penitentiary 
would,  if  faithfully  carried  out  on  the  Sunday  when  the 
fire  took  place,  have  prevented  the  loss  which  then  took 
place,  but  it  can  he  made  to  appear  beyond  all  doubt  that 
these  rules  and  regulations  were  disregarded  and  not 
maintained.  Your  memorialists,  who  were  not  permitted 
to  maintain  a proper  guard  over  their  property,  which 
they  had  done  until  ordered  to  discontinue  it,  have  been 
subjected  to  heavy  loss  by  the  conduct,  omission  and  neg- 
ligence of  the  officers  of  this  State. 

Your  memorialists  further  state,  that  after  the  heavy 
loss  they  had  sustained  by  the  fire,  and  under  the  circum- 
stances hereinbefore  mentioned,  they  were  required  to  set- 
tle for  the  rest  of  the  property  and  hire  of  convicts  up  to 
the  31st  December,  1860,  and  to  pay  to  the  Directors  of 
the  Maryland  Penitentiary  the  sum  of  $1,075.59  from  the 
payment  of  which  they  ought,  as  they  insisted,  when  mak- 
ing said  payment,  and  still  insist,  to  have  been  excused 
and  relieved. 

Your  memorialists  further  state,  that  they  have  been 
advised  that  if  they  had  made  an  agreement  with  indi- 
viduals, or  a body  corporate,  liable  to  be  sued,  that  they 
might  have  maintained  an  action  at  law,  and  recovered, 
under  the  circumstances,  the  amount  of  their  loss  ; but 
that,  inasmuch  as  no  suit  can  be  maintained  against  the 
Directors  of  the  Maryland  Penitentiary,  and  none  against 
the  State  of  Maryland,  they  have  no  redress  except  by  ap- 
plication to  your  Honorable  Body. 

Your  memorialists,  finding  that  their  only  redress,  under 
the  circumstances  in  which  they  have  been  placed,  must 
come  from  your  Honorable  Body,  which  has  the  power  to 
grant  full  and  adequate  relief,  have  made  this  application 
in  the  hope  and  belief  that  you  will  cause  a full  and 
complete  examination  into  all  the  circumstances  of  this 
transaction  to  be  made,  and  do  what  is  just,  proper  and 
equitable  ; and  they  therefore  pray  that  you  will  make 
good  their  loss  and  grant  full  relief  to  them,  &c. 

JOHN  H.  DUVALL, 

June  10,  1861.  WILLIAM  HOWARD. 


41 


[copy.] 

These  articles  of  agreement  made  and  concluded  be- 
tween the  Directors  of  the  Maryland  Penitentiary  on  the 
one  part,  and  John  H.  Duvall,  of  the  city  of  Baltimore, 
on  the  other  part,  witnesseth,  that  the  said  Directors 
on  their  part  do  covenant  and  agree  with  the  said  John 
H.  Duvall. 

1st.  To  rent  unto  him  the  blacksmith  shop  now  vacant 
at  the  Penitentiary,  with  all  the  rooms  and  conveniences 
thereunto  attached,  except  the  carpenter  shop,  the  engine 
and  boiler,  one  of  the  blacksmith  furnaces,  to  be  placed  in 
the  south-west  corner  of  the  shop  for  the  use  of  the  Insti- 
tution, to  be  worked  at  no  time  by  more  than  two  hands, 
for  the  remaining  portion  of  the  year  eighteen  hundred 
and  fifty-nine,  and  for  five  years  thereafter,  for  the  annual 
rent  of  two  hundred  dollars,  with  the  privilege  of  remov- 
ing the  present  engine  and  boiler,  and  of  erecting  others 
of  more  power,  and  also  of  erecting  steam  boxes  and  dry 
houses,  and  removing  a portion  of  the  fire  places  and 
chimneys,  and  of  making  such  other  changes  and  addi- 
tions, without  injury  to  the  premises,  as  may  be  necessary 
for  the  convenience  of  manufacturing  barrels  by  machin- 
ery, and  also  for  the  use  of  yard  room  for  the  storage  of 
one  hundred  cords  of  wood  ; all  said  changes  and  addi- 
tions to  be  at  the  cost  of  John  H.  Duvall,  and  to  be  made 
under  the  supervision  and  directions  of  the  Directors  and 
Warden. 

2nd.  That  the  said  Directors  agree  to  hire  unto  the  said 
John  H.  Duvall  thirty  of  the  male  convict  prisoners,  such 
as  they  have  or  may  have  best  adapted  for  his  purposes, 
to  be  employed  by  him  in  the  manufacturing  of  barrels, 
for  the  term  of  five  years  from  the  first  day  of  January, 
eighteen  hundred  and  sixty,  and  to  grant  him  the  privi- 
lege of  increasing  the  number,  if  they  be  required  by  him, 
from  time  to  time,  (any  increase  of  prisoners  at  any  time 
to  be  kept  by  John  H.  Duvall  to  the  end  of  the  term  of 
this  agreement,)  to  the  number  of  seventy-five.  The  hire 
of  all  said  prisoners  to  be  at  the  rate  of  twenty-five  cents 
per  day  for  the  first  three  months,  as  they  enter  his  em- 
ployment, and  sixty  cents  per  day  thereafter,  with  the 
privilege  of  receiving  as  many  of  the  prisoners  as  he  may 
require  at  any  time  during  the  remainder  of  the  year 
eighteen  hundred  and  fifty-nine. 

3rd.  That  the  said  Directors  grant  unto  the  said  John 
H.  Duvall  the  right  to  remove  at  the  expiration  of  this 
contract  all  his  machinery  and  building  materials,  and 
effects  of  every  kind,  he  having  first  discharged  to  said 
Directors  his  debts  and  obligations  under  this  contract. 

I 


42 


These  articles  of  agreement  witnesseth,  on  the  second 
part,  that  the  said  John  H.  Duvall  doth  agree  on  his  part, 
and  hereby  hinds  himself,  to  employ  the  thirty  convict 
prisoners,  as  provided  for  above,  and  to  make  payment  for 
the  same  weekly  in  current  funds  of  the  State  of  Mary- 
land, and  to  pay  for  the  shop,  yard  room,  &c.,  herein  be- 
fore specifiedj  at  the  end  of  each  quarter,  in  current  funds 
of  the  State  of  Maryland,  and  also  that  all  agents  and 
superintendents  of  the  shops  occupied  by  him,  which  he 
may  employ  at  his  own  expense,  shall  he  subject  to  the 
rules  and  regulations  of  the  prison. 

2nd.  That  the  said  John  H.  Duvall  agrees  to  make  pay- 
ment to  the  Institution  monthly  for  all  over  work  made 
by  the  prisoners  in  his  employ,  and  to  permit  the  Direc- 
tors and  Warden  to  regulate  the  tasks  of  said  prisoners, 
said  prisoners  tasks  to  correspond,  as  can  he  made  practi- 
cable, with  the  tasks  exacted  of  the  prisoners  in  the  other 
shops  of  the  establishment. 

3rd.  That  the  said  John  H.  Duvall  agrees,  and  hereby 
hinds  himself,  to  a faithful  observance  of  the  terms  of  this 
contract  for  the  period  herein  named,  under  the  penalty 
of  one  thousand  dollars  for  its  violation,  and  to  let  his 
buildings  and  fixtures  remain  as  security  for  the  fulfil- 
ment of  his  obligations  until  they  are  fully  discharged. 

And  lastly,  it  is  understood  and  agreed  upon  by  and 
between  the  Directors  of  the  Maryland  Penitentiary  and 
said  John  H.  Duvall,  that  if  either  of  the  parties  to  this 
cantract  shall  desire  to  terminate  the  same  at  the  end 
thereof,  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  party  desiring  such 
termination  to  give  notice  in  writing  to  the  other  three 
months  before  the  expiration  of  the  time  for  which  this 
contract  is  now  made. 

In  witness  whereof,  Wm.  J.  Bryson,  John  Hurst,  John 
Hilbert  and  R.  Middleton,  Monthly  Committee  acting  for 
the  Board  of  Directors  of  Maryland  Penitentiary,  in  be- 
half of  said  Board  of  Directors  and  said  John  H.  Duvall, 
have  interchangeably  set  their  hand  and  seals  this  fourth 
day  of  October,  eighteen  hundred  and  fifty-nine. 


Test  : 


Committee. 


JOHN  H.  DUVALL, 

"seal.' 

fWM.  J.  BRYSON, 

SEAL.' 

JOHN  HURST, 

SEAL.' 

, -< 

JOHN  HILBERT, 

R.  MIDDLETON, 

SEAL.' 

seal/ 

JNO.  J.  C.  DOUGHERTY. 


i 


